Simon David Drew

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was taken to a Service Bundle by the Hearings Officer. The Panel was satisfied, having considered the documents provided, that the Registrant was served with proper notice of the review hearing by email to his registered address.
2. Ms Sampson applied to the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She submitted that the Panel had indicated it was satisfied as to service of notice of the hearing. Ms Sampson took the Panel to three further attempts to contact the Registrant in January 2024, being emails by the Presenting Officer and by the Hearings Officer and a telephone call leaving a voice message. No response had been received from the Registrant to these attempts at contact.
3. Ms Sampson submitted that this was a mandatory review of a current Order which was due to expire on 28 February 2024. She submitted that an adjournment was unlikely to result in the Registrant’s attendance and, if the review were to be adjourned, there was very limited time to allow for service of notice of another hearing.
4. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of its discretion under Rule 11 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) Procedure Rules 2003 (“the Rules”). He advised the Panel to consider the Practice Note issued by the HCPTS on Proceeding in Absence and also the court authorities of R v Jones, Hayward [2002] UKHL5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 CA and the factors set out in those cases.
5. The Panel considered the Practice Note and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had been satisfied as to service of notice. It considered its discretion to proceed under Rule 11 with the utmost care and caution.
6. The Panel acknowledged that there would be a disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding in his absence. However, it took into account that this was a review mandated by Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2001 (as amended) (“the Order”). If the review was not carried out and the current Order lapsed, the public would be left unprotected. The Panel took into account that there had been no request for an adjournment and, in view of the history of the case, it did not think that an adjournment was likely to result in the Registrant’s attendance. The Panel took into account the strong public interest in conducting the review and determined to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Public/Private Hearing

7. Ms Sampson applied for the Panel to sit partly in private for this review hearing. She reminded the Panel of the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private. Ms Sampson submitted that there would be reference in parts of the hearing to matters relating to the Registrant’s health. In that case, Ms Sampson submitted, it was in the interests of protecting the Registrant’s private life to sit in private when hearing about those matters.
8. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that Rule 10(1)(a) required as a default position, that hearings are conducted in public. However, the same rule provided a derogation from the general rule, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant (or certain others) or where this was in the interests of justice.
9. The Panel considered that it was in the interests of protecting the Registrant’s private life to sit in private when considering health matters, and this outweighed the public interest in a public hearing, but only so far as when considering those matters. The Panel decided to sit partly in private.

Background

10. The Registrant was a registered Paramedic at all relevant times.
11. On 28 October 2019, the Registrant was working via an agency at the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust).
12. The Registrant was working in the resuscitation area of the emergency department (A&E) of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital. It was noted in the early hours of 29 October 2019 that a large number of controlled drugs were missing.
13. The Registrant attended work on 29 October 2019, where he was asked to empty his bag and the missing drugs were found in the possession of the Registrant. The Trust reported this to the Police.
14. On 01 December 2020, the Registrant attended Wycombe Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to the offences as detailed above in the allegations.
15. The Registrant was sentenced on 11 January 2021 and received a community order, a fine of £120, and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge and the Crown Prosecution Service’s costs.
16. The HCPC did not call any witnesses to give live evidence at the substantive hearing of this matter on 31 January 2022.
17. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 31 January 2022. The substantive hearing panel, on the basis of Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and having had sight of the certificate of conviction, found particulars 1 and 3 proved in relation to the conviction.
18. The Panel at the original hearing on 31 January 2022 set out in its determination its decisions in relation to impairment and sanction. As part of this determination, the Panel stated as follows on impairment:

“21. With regard to the “personal” element of impairment, the Panel considered that the convictions have a very direct bearing on the Registrant’s ability to practise safely as a Paramedic. Factors that the Panel took into account were as follows:

a) the thefts occurred at work, while he was working as a Paramedic;
b) they were stolen from A&E where critically ill patients may have had need of them but could have been deprived of them because they were missing;
c) [REDACTED]
d) [REDACTED]
e) that the Panel has no up to date information about where the Registrant is currently working, his competence, or his state of health.

22. The Panel was live to the fact that Paramedics occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to be professional. In the view of the Panel, the Registrant’s conduct fell well below the standards expected of members of the paramedic profession.”
…
“28. The Panel considered that the conviction was serious in nature. The Registrant was convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He acted dishonestly. The Registrant stole from his employer using keys he had been given whilst his colleague was on a break. This act is an abuse of trust placed in him by his employer. The Panel was satisfied that the actions of the Registrant brought the reputation of the profession into disrepute and that he breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, which is to make sure that his conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession.”

19. On the matter of sanction, the Panel stated:

“46. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s actions are incapable of remediation. There is the potential for the Registrant to develop insight and remediate the concerns set out above. The Panel has some information that this journey had begun by November 2019.
47. The Panel concluded that a period of Suspension would provide the necessary level of public protection for its duration. It would mitigate the risk of repetition which the Panel addressed above and the wider public interest concerns that arise in this case. It would allow the Registrant an opportunity for reflection in which he may potentially develop fuller insight into his failings and evidence his continued remediation. The Panel found a Suspension Order to be the appropriate sanction in this case.
…
48. In order to test the proportionality of a Suspension Order, the Panel gave very serious consideration to a Striking Off Order. This was a finely balanced decision but the Panel concluded that such an order would not be appropriate because it would be disproportionate given all of the circumstances of this case.”

20. The Panel determined to impose a Suspension Order for 12 months and informed the Registrant as to the information which would assist the Panel which was to review that Order before its expiry.
21. The Registrant attended the review of that Suspension Order, which was conducted on 25 January 2023. He did not provide any of the information which had been suggested by the previous Panel. The Registrant stated that he was still “in two minds” as to how he felt about a return to paramedic practice.
22. The Registrant confirmed that he had successfully completed his criminal sentence and it was spent. [REDACTED] However, the Registrant did not produce evidence of his completion of his criminal sentence to the Panel but stated that this would be available from his Probation Officer. The Registrant stated that he had not worked as a paramedic for three years but had worked instead for Carmarthen Council for a year and was currently working for a car rental company.
23. The reviewing panel on 25 January 2023 (“the 2023 Panel”) stated as follows with regard to impairment:

“33. The Panel determined that the Registrant has not shown evidence of remediation or a sufficient level of insight, nor has he engaged in CPD and/or relevant training.
34. The Panel therefore concluded that there is a high risk of repetition of similar concerns if the Registrant were to return to practice. The Registrant’s conduct which resulted in convictions and a finding of impairment involves the risk of serious harm to patients as well as the wider public interest.
35. The Panel noted that there is, therefore, an ongoing risk of harm to the public, including vulnerable service users, and the Panel concluded that a finding of impairment is required to protect the public against the risk of repetition.
36. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has not demonstrated that he has reflected on the impact which his conduct, by way of his convictions, would have on members of the public and the confidence that members of the public place in Paramedics, or on the reputation of the profession. The Panel noted the finding of the substantive hearing panel that the conduct of the Registrant might concern an informed member of the public, and the Panel concluded that the Registrant has continued in his failure to demonstrate a sufficient level of insight”.

24. The 2023 Panel agreed with the original Panel that the Registrant’s misconduct was capable of remediation but decided that the Registrant had not provided the Panel with any evidence of remedial steps, despite clear guidance.
25. The 2023 Panel decided to extend the Suspension Order for the maximum 12 months from its expiry. It stated that this was proportionate because of the lack of remediation and the serious nature of the Registrant’s conduct. That Panel stated that:

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

26. The 2023 Panel set out a list of information the Registrant might wish to provide to the reviewing Panel today, in demonstration that he had taken steps to remediate the original concerns.

Review 23 January 2024 – the current review

27. Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC, took the Panel through the background of the case and the findings of previous Panels, as summarised above.
28. Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant had repeatedly failed to provide any of the information or documentation which two previous panels had suggested would be helpful. Further, there was no indication that the Registrant wished to continue to practise as a paramedic.
29. Ms Sampson submitted that the HCPC’s position was that a Striking Off Order would be the most appropriate order today.
30. Ms Sampson took the Panel to the updating information for the purposes of the review today. She submitted that there was a record of a telephone conversation with the Registrant within the Addendum Bundle provided. There it was recorded, she said, that the Registrant had told a Case Manager of the HCPC, on 13 December 2023, that he continued to not practise as a paramedic. He had worked as a plumber, then for Enterprise Cars. At the time of the call, the Registrant had a permanent job with the Royal Mail. It was recorded that he had stated: “he is sure that he will not practise as a paramedic again”.
31. Ms Sampson reminded the Panel of the “persuasive burden” on the Registrant, which comes from the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) and is also referred to in the Practice Note on Article 30 reviews (“Art. 30 Practice Note”).
32. Ms Sampson took the Panel to the Sanctions Policy. She submitted that no lesser sanction than Suspension was appropriate. As to further suspension, Ms Sampson submitted that this would not serve any useful purpose.
33. Ms Sampson submitted that, in light of the lack of any meaningful engagement by the Registrant, including the failure to attend this review despite attempts to contact him, the Panel may reasonably conclude the Registrant is currently unwilling to resolve matters. This, she submitted was incompatible with continued registration.
34. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it should consider the Article 30 Practice Note and all the information before it, including the previous determinations and submissions. He advised the Panel that the court had acknowledged in Abrahaem that the Registrant has a persuasive burden to demonstrate at a review that the original concerns had been dealt with.
35. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to first consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a paramedic remained currently impaired. If so, it should consider taking one of the steps set out in Article 30(1) of the Order. The Panel should consider these in conjunction with the Sanctions Policy issued by the HCPC and impose the least restrictive sanction which met the level of impairment. It should start with the least restrictive sanction first and move up, as appropriate.

Decision of the Panel

36. The Panel conducting the review today has not had the benefit of the Registrant’s attendance or the provision of any of the information which the previous Panel suggested would assist it.
37. The Panel is mindful not to hold the Registrant’s lack of attendance against him today, as it has not heard from him as to the reasons for his non-attendance. However, it remains the case that the Registrant has not provided to the Panel any information which evidences any remediation which he has undertaken in relation to the original concerns in the case.
38. The Panel read and considered the determination of the original panel and agreed with its assessment of the factors which had impaired the Registrant’s fitness to practise, as set out above. The Panel has, however, made its own determination concerning impairment and any appropriate sanction.
39. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had pleaded guilty to the original offences and had co-operated with the courts and other agencies. It took into account that this had been a single incident, after 20 years of practice. [REDACTED] However, it was also the case that this had been a deliberate act by the Registrant, in breach of the trust placed in him. The Panel also agreed that he had not demonstrated at the time any acknowledgement of the potential effect on patients. He had shown limited insight into issues and prioritised his own interests.
40. The Panel today reviewing the Order of the 2023 Panel had no further information on the Registrant’s further development of insight, or any steps which he had taken to remediate his misconduct, even though that misconduct was potentially remediable. The Panel was therefore unable to decide that it was ‘highly unlikely’ that the misconduct would be repeated.
41. [REDACTED]
42. In light of the lack of any evidence of remediation having been pursued and the lack of evidence of further development of insight, the Panel concluded that there remained a risk of repetition of the past misconduct.
43. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant had had ample time to demonstrate remediation after the time that had elapsed and the information with which he had been provided. The Panel also concluded that, if it did not find the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired, this would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulator and would fail to maintain standards.
44. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, both in relation to the ‘personal component’ due to a risk of repetition, and in relation to the ‘public component’ due to a need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold professional standards.
45. The Panel next considered what steps it should take, following the finding of current impairment. It considered the Sanctions Policy (update March 2019).
46. The Panel first considered that it could take No Action and allow the Order to lapse. However, it concluded that this would completely fail to protect the public from a Registrant in respect of whom it had found a risk of repetition of misconduct. For similar reasons, the Panel rejected the alternatives of referring the case for mediation or making a Caution Order as either did not protect the public.
47. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel considered that, bearing in mind the Registrant’s repeated failure to engage with the regulator and demonstrate any remediation, it had no confidence that any conditions of practice would be complied with. Moreover, the Panel took into account that Conditions of Practice were more suitable when the impairment related to practice issues but conditions were not suitable or sufficient where there were serious issues relating to [REDCATED] dishonesty, in respect of the stealing of controlled drugs from the employer.
48. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order. The Panel noted that previous Panels had considered that Suspension would allow the Registrant to demonstrate he had remediated his misconduct. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy stated that a suitable case was where:

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.

49. The Panel considered that the previous panels had been prepared to offer the Registrant an opportunity to demonstrate his insight and to resolve or remedy his failings. However, since the original determination, the Panel at this review considered that the Registrant had done nothing of substance to demonstrate either the development of insight, or the undertaking of remediation. In addition, it was of the view that the Registrant’s skills and knowledge were very likely to be significantly out of date. The Panel considered that the reasons behind previous Panels having considered it appropriate to impose suspension now no longer applied.
50. The Panel noted paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:

“When is a striking off order appropriate?
130. A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive):
• dishonesty (see paragraphs 56–58);
…
…
…
• abuse of professional position, including vulnerability (see paragraphs 67–75);
…
…
• criminal convictions for serious offences (see paragraphs 80–92); and
…
131. 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 or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.”

51. The Panel considered that the above factors in paragraphs 130 and 131 set out are present in this case. Although there was no information that the Registrant had repeated his misconduct, he will have been suspended for two years continuously by the expiry of the current period of suspension. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy is a guidance document and did not require the two years’ suspension to have already expired as a requirement.
52. The Panel concluded that it was clear that the Registrant had not provided any real evidence of his remediation or development of insight. He had not provided any reliable indication of an intent to engage with the process since the last review. There remained serious risks to the public and a risk of repetition in the absence of any evidence of remediation.
53. The Panel concluded that, in all the circumstances, the Registrant’s position was incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order was sufficient to protect the public.
54. The Panel determined to make a Striking Off Order on the Registrant’s registration. The Strike Off Order will take effect on 28 February 2024, upon the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Simon David Drew from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

The Order imposed today will apply from 28 February 2024. 

History of Hearings for Simon David Drew