Alan Deakin

Preliminary Matters
Hearing in private
1. Mr Smith made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Heath and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the “Rules”). He submitted it was appropriate that details contained in the Sentencing remarks should be heard in private because of the reporting restriction imposed by the criminal court and to protect the private life of the complainant.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that hearings should generally be heard in public in accordance with the principle of open justice. However, there were limited exceptions where it would be appropriate to hear all or part of the case in private in the interests of justice or to protect the private life of an individual concerned in the case. The Panel should carefully balance these considerations with reference to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private”.

3. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to hear part of the case in private in the interests of justice and to protect the private life of the Registrant. This decision was limited to the details which were contained in the Sentencing Remarks which were provided to the HCPC on a confidential basis. The remainder of the case should be heard in public.

Background

4. On 11 July 2020, the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC in which he indicated that it had been alleged that he had sexually assaulted a member of staff at a social event outside of work and he was due to be voluntarily interviewed by the police. He stated that he had informed his line manager prior to the request from the police and, due to the police investigation, he had been suspended. He strongly denied the accusations.

5. The HCPC obtained a Certificate of Conviction from the Court which confirmed that the Registrant had been convicted on 16 June 2023 of two counts of Assault by penetration and one count of sexual assault.

6. On 28 July 2023, the Registrant was sentenced to a total of 71/2 years imprisonment (71/2 years for each count of assault by penetration (concurrent), and 2 years imprisonment (concurrent) for the count of sexual assault. The Registrant is barred from working with children and/or vulnerable adults indefinitely and is subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a Restraining Order.

Decision on Facts

7. In letters dated 8 April 2024 and 2 May 2024 the Registrant stated that he admitted the factual allegations and that his fitness to practise is impaired.

8. The Registrant confirmed his admission of the facts in response to the Allegation.

9. In his submissions the Registrant raised two matters. He also stated that in his criminal trial there were multiple DNA profiles, but that the DNA analysis did not include his DNA profile.

10. In making its findings, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests with the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Rule 10(d) of the Rules states that “where a registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or in Scotland and extract of conviction) shall be admissible as proof of the findings of fact on which it was based”.

11. The Panel considered the certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction dated 16 June 2023 and a transcript of the sentencing remarks made on 18 July 2023 at Lewes Crown Court.

12. In view of those documents and the Registrant’s admission, the Panel found particular 1a and 1b of the Allegation proved.

Decision on Impairment

13. Mr Smith submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reference to both the ‘personal’ element and ‘public’ element set out and explained in the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, and put forward a number of considerations based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

14. The Registrant in his submissions stated that although he does not agree, he accepts the findings of the jury. He stated that he has engaged with the HCPC to the best of his ability. He denied that he is a risk to the public and that in the criminal proceedings he was not placed in custody on the ground that he represented a danger to the public. He referred to his 40-year unblemished career helping people.

15. Mr Smith confirmed that the Registrant has no fitness to practise history.

16. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor on the issue of current impairment, which it accepted. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations”.

17. The Panel considered the nature, seriousness and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction.

18. The Panel first considered whether there is an ongoing risk of repetition of similar conduct. The conduct which underlies the conviction is attitudinal in nature and the Panel considered such conduct to be difficult to remediate. The Registrant, while accepting his conviction, maintained his innocence throughout the criminal process and he does not agree with the underlying facts. It is therefore difficult for the Registrant to demonstrate insight or remediation. In the circumstances the Panel was therefore unable to exclude the risk of repetition. If there were to be any repetition there would be significant harm to members of the public and to the reputation of the profession.

19. The Panel next considered the public component. The ‘public’ element includes any risk to members of the public but also requires proper consideration and due weight to be given to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession.

20. The purpose of fitness to practise proceedings arising from a criminal conviction is not to punish a registrant twice but to protect the public who may come to the registrant as patients and to maintain the high standards and good reputation of the profession. In considering the gravity of the Registrant’s conviction the Panel took into account the following aspects:
• [REDACTED]
• [REDACTED]
• [REDACTED]
• the sentence imposed by the criminal court, the Panel had regard to the principle in CHRE v General Dental Council and Fleishmann [2005] EWCA 87 that where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence.

21. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s long and otherwise unblemished career as a Paramedic, but it considered that it carried little weight when considered in the context of the nature, circumstances and gravity of the criminal offences.

22. The public are entitled to expect that members of the profession conduct themselves appropriately with their colleagues. Section 9.1 of the Standards requires that registrants:
“must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

23. The Registrant has acted in breach of this fundamental tenet of the profession. His behaviour was entirely contrary to the basic expectation that Paramedics will comply with the criminal law and not receive convictions of this nature. The Panel decided that the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the need to declare and uphold standards among members of the profession require a finding of impairment. Therefore, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the public component.

Decision on Sanction
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

24. At the conclusion of the submissions on impairment the Registrant indicated that he did not intend to participate in the hearing when the Panel reconvened to announce its decision on current impairment. The Panel Chair explained that if the Panel were to decide that his fitness to practise is impaired the Registrant would have the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate sanction. The Registrant stated that he did not wish to make any further comments and that he was content for the Panel to make a decision in his absence. When the hearing reconvened the Hearings Officer informed the Panel that the Registrant had been notified of the time the hearing would reconvene and that he had confirmed again, in an email, that he did not wish to participate.

25. Mr Smith invited the Panel to exercise its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. He submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself.

26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Her advice included reference to the cases of General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

27. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence. His absence from the hearing is voluntary and he is content for the hearing to proceed in his absence. The Panel considered that there would be no purpose in an adjournment and that it was in the public interest for this case to be disposed of expeditiously.

Sanction

28. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Smith and in reaching a decision on the sanction it has taken these submissions into account. Mr Smith did not make any specific submissions on sanction and referred the Panel to the Sanctions Policy, including reference to the sanctions of a Suspension Order and a Striking Off Order. Mr Smith also referred the Panel to paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy.

29. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and has reached its decision on sanction by following the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

30. The Panel reminded itself that a sanction is not intended to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and that a sanction must be the least restrictive possible.

31. The primary purpose of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the Registrant may pose to members of the public and to the wider public interest, namely the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.

32. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

33. The Panel began its deliberations on sanction by considering the mitigating factors. The Registrant has not been subject to any previous fitness to practise proceedings in his long career. He also admitted the entirety of the Allegation.

34. The Panel next considered the aggravating factors and considered that there had been a criminal conviction in relation to offences involving sexual assaults against a vulnerable individual. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s sentence is not complete, that the Registrant is barred from working with children and adults, and that the Judge imposed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The Panel took account of the principle in CHRE v General Dental Council and Fleishmann [2005] EWCA 87 that where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. The Registrant has not demonstrated insight, remorse or remediation. The Panel also took into account the factors that it highlighted in its decision on impairment and the actual harm to the Complainant.

35. The Panel decided that it was not appropriate to make no order because of the serious nature of the Registrant’s conviction. A Caution Order is also insufficient to mark the gravity of the conviction and insufficient to protect the public, as the Panel has concluded that there is a risk of repetition.

36. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel did not consider conditions to be appropriate for a criminal offence involving sexual assault. There were no workable conditions that could be formulated which would address the risks identified. Conditions are also unrealistic given the sentence imposed by the criminal court. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s conviction was too serious for a Conditions of Practice Order to be appropriate.

37. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel noted that suspension was not appropriate where there is a lack of sufficient insight and there remained a risk of repetition. The Registrant’s conviction involved very serious offences, reflected in Sentencing Remarks and the sentence. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy. This states:

“Although inclusion on the sex offenders’ database is not a punishment, it does serve to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database.”

38. Given the length of the Registrant’s custodial sentence, his registration period on the database is indefinite. The Panel did not identify any reasons it should depart from the Sanctions Policy and it did not consider that a suspension order, which is for a maximum period of one year, was sufficient to protect the public or to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

39. Finally, the Panel considered a Striking Off Order, which was the remaining option open to the Panel. The Panel was fully aware that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and that it may be the appropriate sanction for a criminal conviction for serious offences. The Panel was satisfied that given the circumstances of this case a Striking Off Order was necessary and appropriate. The Panel was satisfied that due to the nature of the concerns that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. The conviction was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the HCPC register.

40. The Panel considered the impact of a Striking Off Order on the Registrant, but decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest.

41. The Panel was satisfied that a Striking Off Order was the most appropriate sanction, having considered lesser sanctions before arriving at this order.

Order: The Registrar is directed is directed to strike the name of Alan Deakin from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order
Application
1. Mr Smith made an application for an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She confirmed that the Panel has the power to make an interim order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, but this is not an automatic outcome. The Panel should carefully consider if an interim order is necessary and if so on which of the statutory grounds. If an interim order is required the Panel should apply the principle of proportionality and impose the least restrictive order which is sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.

Decision
3. In its deliberations the Panel noted that the Registrant is currently serving a custodial sentence and that this provides a measure of public protection. However, the Panel considered that there were circumstances in which this protection might be removed. The Panel was concerned that if the Registrant were to appeal the decision, there would be no protection for the public while the appeal is ongoing. The Panel therefore decided that an interim order is necessary for the protection of the public. The Panel was also of the view that the gravity and seriousness of the Registrant’s criminal offence was such that an interim order was otherwise in the public interest.

4. The Panel considered the option of an interim conditions of practice order but decided that there are no workable conditions that would address the risk of repetition. The Panel therefore makes 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.

5. The Panel considered the length of the order and decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to impose the order for the maximum period of 18 months. In reaching this decision the Panel took into account the realistic length of time that might be required for the final determination of any appeal.

The Panel makes 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.

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 Alan Deakin