Lloyd Baker

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA33574

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 21/09/2023 End: 17:00 25/09/2023

Location: This hearing is being held virtually via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Not well founded

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



1. You worked as a Paramedic at Jigsaw Medical for a total of 12 days whilst on sick leave from the Hampshire Police between the period of 29 June 2020 and 01 August 2020.

2. Your actions at Particular 1 constitutes dishonesty.

3. Your actions at Particulars 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.

4. By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired


The HCPC has made the following allegation(s) against the Registrant: 


  1. You worked as a Paramedic at Jigsaw Medical for a total of 12 days whilst on sick leave from the Hampshire Police between the period of 29 June 2020 and 1 August 2020.


  1. Your actions at Particular 1 constitutes dishonesty.


  1. Your actions at Particular 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.


  1. By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practice is impaired.


Proceeding in private in part


  1. Mr Anderson on behalf of the Registrant applied for the hearing to be in private given that specific details of the Registrant’s health and personal life arose in this case. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that it has the powers to agree to this application, which are relevant when private matters are raised within a case but the public need not know the details. The Panel took into account the Practice Note on Proceeding in Private and decided that while the public should know how those healthcare professionals who serve them are regulated, it is not necessary for them to know the details of the Registrant’s private life. Accordingly, because the Registrant has the right to privacy regarding his personal life and health, that the details of such matters should be held in private and not form part of any public determination. The Panel did not consider these issues to be inextricably linked with the matters that bring the Registrant before the Panel and accordingly, only those parts of the hearing that dealt with specific personal circumstances would be held in private.


Potential conflict of interest

  1. One member of the Panel has a daughter who is and was at the material time a senior serving police office at Hampshire Police. This was disclosed to the Registrant and his view was sought on whether he had any objection to the Panel member sitting on this case. The Legal Assessor set out the principle that justice must both be done and seen to be done, and whether a “fair minded and informed observer” having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a “real possibility” of bias, as set out in the case of Porter v Magill. The Legal Assessor with Mr Anderson present explained the relevance of the principles of a conflict of interest and the Registrant confirmed that he did not wish to take issue with this and considered the Panel to be composed of professional members who could set any interests aside.


Outcome of internal Hampshire Police investigation

  1. Mr Anderson on behalf of the HCPC apologised that the outcome of the investigation formed part of the papers before the Panel. He asked that the Panel disregard this where the Panel must consider the same issue in this hearing.


  1. The Legal Assessor provided legal advice on the fact that the outcome of a previous investigation had been included in the papers. While documentation from a previous disciplinary investigation or hearing, can be used in a fitness to practice case, it should be redacted so that no previous findings of fact are contained within the documents. This is in order to prevent the potential for panels to be tainted by a previous finding on the same issues that they are to determine.


  1. The case in which the High Court made it clear that the potential for Panels to be tainted by a previous finding should be avoided is Enemuwe v NMC [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin). In that case, an appeal was allowed on the basis that there must have been a risk that in some way the Panel allowed themselves to be influenced, even if only peripherally, by their knowledge of what had been upheld by a previous decision. Applying that ruling here means that no evidence of the outcome of the investigation should be included by the Panel in their consideration of the facts in dispute before them now.


  1. The Panel was confident that it could disregard references to the outcome of the internal Hampshire police investigation and consider matters afresh. The Registrant indicated that he was content with this approach.








  1. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic and former serving Police Officer with Hampshire Police. He was dual qualified at the material time between 29 June 2020 and 1 August 2020.


  1. The Registrant had worked within the Ambulance Service since September 2009, when he joined as a Student Paramedic. He was employed by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust (SWAST) initially as a Bank Ambulance Care Assistant then as a Bank Paramedic. In 2011, the Registrant obtained employment with the South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) as a Bank Paramedic.


  1. In 2017, the Registrant joined the Hampshire Constabulary as a police constable but continued working as a Paramedic on his rest days, through employment with a private ambulance service. He subsequently continued to follow the same pattern of working as a Paramedic on rest days from 5 November 2019 through Jigsaw Medical on a self-employed contractor agency basis.


  1. The Registrant was employed by Hampshire Police between 21 August 2017 and 1 August 2020.


  1. Between 29 June and 01 August 2020, the Registrant was certified unfit to perform his role as a Police Officer due to stress. He received sick pay for this period whilst off work. Shortly after this sick leave began on 1 July 2020 the Registrant handed in his resignation and therefore did not return to work thereafter. His last day of service was 1 August 2020.


  1. During the period of 29 June and 1 August 2020 the Registrant completed 12 days of work as a Paramedic for Jigsaw Medical whilst claiming sick pay from Hampshire Constabulary.


  1. On 22 December 2020, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) received a self-referral from the Registrant, a registered Paramedic. The Registrant advised that he was employed as a frontline Paramedic with an ambulance service, and had additionally joined the Hampshire Police (the Police) in 2017, working as a Paramedic on his rest days. The Registrant stated that he had left the Police, and when doing so, a complaint had been made regarding him breaching ‘their working time directive’.



  1. The Registrant made an unqualified admission to Particular 1 and a qualified admission to Particular 2; he explained that he had not appreciated that what he was doing was dishonest, nor set out to be dishonest at the time, but now recognised that what he had done was wrong.


  1. The Panel heard live evidence from the following witness in the case: DC 23967 SP. She was the Investigating Officer for the Hampshire Police Force where the Registrant worked.


  1. DC SP gave oral evidence in which she adopted the two previous statements she had made on 1 November 2022 and 31 July 2023. She confirmed that she conducted her investigation when provided with information about the Registrant working in another role while being signed off as sick for his police role. Her statement referenced that records showed that the Registrant had been on sick leave from Hampshire Police between 29 June 2020 and 1 August 2020. She said that the expectation was that when someone was signed off sick from work, the individual was not fit to work.


  1. She said in response to Panel questions that secondary employment was permitted if a police officer at Hampshire Police submits a Business Interest Request. She indicated that the Registrant had applied to do two shifts a month on 13 November 2017. This was approved. What the Registrant failed to do was renew this annually. Accordingly, that approval lapsed on February 2019, meaning he had no authority to have the paramedic role.


  1. The Business Interest Request (AD190) was not before the Panel but DC SP read out the declaration on the form that the Registrant had signed. It was thereafter put into evidence. It was a six-page document with various entries. One entry set out that an annual renewal was required and that it should be discussed at annual appraisals.


Registrant’s evidence


  1. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation. He explained that he did his basic training as a police officer but wanted to continue working as a paramedic given the drop in salary from starting in a new profession. His understanding was this was possible and he completed a form (AD190) for the Anti-Corruption Unit. With regard to the annual renewal reminder, he said that he received many emails and wonders if some “slipped through the cracks”. His understanding was that he did not need to complete further paperwork unless the arrangements changed. He did discuss this work as a paramedic at his yearly appraisals.


  1. He explained he was a victim of a serious crime whilst travelling in Russia. He came back to the UK being conscious that he was unlikely to get justice in a foreign country. He also thought that the team he worked with at Hampshire Police were unlikely to be sympathetic to his position if he made it common knowledge.


  1. Furthermore, at this time his father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. This impacted family finances and the Registrant’s desire to work shifts as a paramedic stemmed from trying to help his parents. He was trying to prevent them losing their home, by contributing financially. He was also dealing with the recent incident in Russia. The work environment at Hampshire Police became very difficult for him and these different pressures impacted on his health; his GP signed him off sick from work but said he should do things that made him happy. For him, that was working as a paramedic with the advantage that he could earn money for his parents.


  1. He said that he was not motivated by greed but by a desire to help his parents. He said that at the time he didn’t know how wrong it was. The Registrant explained that he handed in his notice from the Police and was signed off sick by his GP. For these reasons he believed he would not be getting paid. He thought that he would only get payment for his work as a Paramedic from Jigsaw Medical. He accepts full responsibility for what he did. On finding that he was paid by the police, he contacted them and attempted to pay them back.



  1. He said that he had not repeated this behaviour and had in any event always ensured that he had 11 hours off between shifts.


  1. In cross-examination, the Registrant confirmed that he did work for 12 shifts during his final month at the police. He had not expected to receive sick pay having already given in his notice. He did try to pay it back to the police when he appreciated that he had been paid by two different employers. He spoke to different people about the overpayment and was told that it could only be transferred to his pension, which he could not access himself having worked for less than three years.



  1. The Registrant said that he should have been open with his shift sergeant about what had happened and used support services to help him within the police. The Registrant stated, because of what had happened in Russia, he was not thinking clearly and had handed in his notice to the Police. He stated Hampshire Police was a place that was not comfortable to work within and he felt unsupported and insecure in his team. He took the Paramedic shifts as it was a job he enjoyed and it also earned him money for his parents.


  1. The Registrant said that he told his GP that his stress at work was due to the people he worked with at Hampshire Police but that working as a paramedic made him happy. This was a conversation he had as he was leaving the surgery and no note was made of it. He accepted that he was wrong. He did the wrong thing. He would not repeat it. He has never repeated it. He would discourage anyone from doing what he had done.


  1. In response to Panel questions, the Registrant indicated that he did not expect to be paid during his notice period because he was not actually working and was off-sick. He said that he was told by a colleague that if he did not come into work he could not expect recompense; this was a colleague who had also been in the police for a short time. He said he was not thinking straight after things that had occurred in Russia and had not checked this information, and he kept working as paramedic because he was not working for the police.


  1. The Registrant did not pay the money back to Hampshire Police although he had tried to; he said that he was told he did not have to. He could have done this and it would not have been a problem. He said that he did not feel that he worked for the Police after he resigned, because he had to give in his uniform, been taken off the computer-system, and thought that he needed to work for his parents and so did additional shifts via Jigsaw Medical.


  1. He could not recall when his last paycheck came from Hampshire Police but it was likely that it would have been 15 September 2020. He said that he approached his shift sergeant about the payment, who couldn’t help. He then spoke to Human Resources (HR) the same day. He said that he checked with HR whether he should have been paid and they said he was entitled to the payment. He did not tell them that he was working for Jigsaw Medical whilst receiving sick pay from the Police. He was told that he could either keep it or transfer it into his pension. He said he did not do this as he wanted to give it to his parents. He offered to pay it when he spoke to DC SP also. He had not calculated what the amount would be but his full monthly wage was approximately £1,300.


  1. The Registrant said that HR did not consider his final payment from Hampshire Police as an overpayment. He paid the money to his parents. Once his father died and he had seen a private doctor and thought about the situation he appreciated his mistakes. At this point, in December 2020, he self-referred to the HCPC because he felt it was question of integrity.

He now only has one employment and his experiences have been useful in educating students.




  1. In closing, Mr Anderson submitted that the Registrant admitted that he had worked the 12 shifts as listed in Particular 1. In relation to Particulars 2 and 3, there has been a narrative plea. He said that in relation to dishonesty this matter needs to be considered on a spectrum, rather than as a monolithic entity. He reminded the Panel to apply the Ivey v Genting test.




  1. Mr Anderson submitted further to the case of Remedy that misconduct must be sufficiently serious and that it can involve morally culpable behaviour which brings disgrace upon the practitioner and profession.


  1. The Registrant apologised and said it would never happen again.


  1. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which set out the burden and standard of proof.


  1. With respect to the issue of dishonesty the Legal Assessor’s advice was “the test of dishonesty is set out in the case law of Ivey v Genting Casinos and has subsequently been confirmed: when dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held.


  • When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people.


  • There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.



  • Accordingly, the Panel will consider what the Registrant believed to be the case and whether they accept his evidence and representations that his actions were innocent if misguided.


  • Thereafter, the Panel will need to consider whether his conduct is honest or dishonest applying the objective standards of an ordinary law-abiding person.”



Decision on Facts

  1. Particular 1 of the Allegation is that the Registrant worked as a Paramedic at Jigsaw Medical for a total of 12 days whilst on sick leave from the Hampshire Police. The documents show that the Registrant was on sick leave from Hampshire Police and that he worked at Jigsaw Medical for 12 shifts. The Registrant admits this Particular.


  1. Particular 1: Admitted and found proved.


  1. Particular 2 of the Allegation involved the Registrant behaving dishonestly in working while on sick-leave. The Panel considered the subjective test of Ivey v Genting. The Panel noted that the Registrant had, at one point, applied for permission to work as a paramedic from the Police, however, there were administrative procedures he did not comply with. The Registrant had resigned from the Police and continued to work as a Paramedic. He said that he did not think that he would be paid twice because he had resigned from the Police, and handed in his uniform. The Panel believed the Registrant did not expect to be paid for the relevant period of time. When he was paid, he was surprised and he contacted HR. The Panel found it would be highly unlikely that he would raise the issue with HR if he was dishonestly trying to obtain monies from the Police but would rather seek to avoid bringing attention to this payment.


  1. The Panel considered that given his health and personal circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Registrant held a mistaken but genuine belief. The Registrant in having resigned, handed over his uniform, and without any intention of returning to work as a police officer considered it appropriate to work for Jigsaw Medical. The Panel reviewed all of the circumstances in which the Registrant found himself and accepted that they had clearly impacted his state of mind.


  1. The Panel looked at the objective test in Ivey v Genting and considered whether in the light of the Registrant’s genuinely held belief his actions would be considered objectively dishonest. Having done so the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions were not dishonest.



  1. Particular 2 not found proved.



Decision on Misconduct


  1. Whether the proven facts amount to the statutory ground of the Allegation is a matter of judgement for the Panel. The Panel took into account the representations of both parties. The HCPC submit that if Particular 1, either in isolation or with Particular 2, is found proved, that this establishes that the Registrant acted in such a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and behaviour that the public would expect of a HCPC registered Paramedic. The HCPC submitted the Registrant breached a fundamental principle of the profession in that he was dishonest when claiming for work from a second employer whilst being on sick leave from another (the police) at the same time.


  1. The Registrant accepts that in working shifts as a paramedic whilst being in receipt of sickness pay from the Police is very wrong. He acknowledges that he was still employed by them and accordingly should have had their consent to work the 12 shifts he did at Jigsaw Medical. He only appreciated the gravity of his wrongdoing and later He self-referred at this point.


  1. The Panel has regard to the Registrant’s wrongdoing and his personal situation at the time. It took into account that he has worked as a paramedic for many years without concern and the events that bring him before this Panel are isolated and confined to a period of a single month. Further that the wrong doing was out of character and strictly limited to a particular time, place and set of circumstances, where the Registrant was under multiple stressors and was careless about administrative details. While the Panel finds that his conduct was not that expected of a registered healthcare professional, it is of the view that not having found dishonesty that Particular 1 alone does not cross the threshold of severity required for this statutory ground.


  1. Had the Panel found dishonesty proved, misconduct would have followed. However, the confusion, and distress under which the Registrant was operating at the material time is such that the Panel considered that Particular 1 to be undesirable behaviour but not behaviour that would be characterised as deplorable.


  1. Therefore, the statutory ground of Misconduct is not made out.


The Panel found no misconduct


No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Lloyd Baker

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
21/09/2023 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Not well founded