Mr Matthew Lee Taylor

The panel at the Substantive Hearing found the following:

Facts proved: 1e); 2a); 2b); 2d; 3a); 3b); 5a) to 5c); 6; 7a) to 7c); and 8

Facts not proved: 1a); 1b); 1c); 1d); 2c) and 4

Grounds: Misconduct (not 2a) and 2 d))

The panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired and a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months was imposed as a sanction.

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been emailed to the Registrant on 9 May 2024.

2. The Panel was also provided with a signed certificate dated 9 May 2024 confirming that the email address the Notice of Hearing had been sent to was the address that the Registrant had provided on the HCPC records. The Panel checked that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the correct address.

3. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant had been served with the Notice of Hearing in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules) and that he had been given more than 28 days’ notice in accordance with Rule 13 (4) of the Rules.

Proceeding in Absence

4. The HCPC applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. It was submitted that the Registrant had been given sufficient notice and was clearly aware of the proceedings. He had responded to the HCPC with abusive messages, which the HCPC had redacted for politeness.

5. It was submitted by the HCPC that there was no evidence that would suggest an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance at a future date. He had voluntarily absented himself, and the disadvantage to proceeding in his absence was outweighed by the need to protect the public. The HCPC reminded the Panel of the principles set out in GMC V Adeogba and submitted that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

6. The Panel heard and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor confirmed that it is a requirement of continued registration with the HCPC that contact details are kept up to date and accurate on the HCPC register (Rule 9(1) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Registrations and Fees) Rules (2003).

7. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the cases of Jatta v NMC (2009) EWCA Civ 824, GMC v Visvardis (2004) EWCA Civ 16, R v Jones (Anthony Williams) HL 20 February 2002 and GMC v Adeogba (2016) EWCA Civ 162 and provided a summary of these cases. The case of Adeogba specifically states that ‘there is a burden on all professional’s subject to a regulatory regime, to engage with the regulator, both in relation to the investigation and ultimate resolution of allegations against them. That is part of the responsibility to which they sign up when being admitted to the profession.’

8. The Registrant had been in contact with the HCPC. The Panel had sight of two emails sent by the Registrant on 9 May 2024. The first was sent to the generic email address at the hearings team at 11.25 am on that date. It stated, ‘Kindly please f*****g off now!!!’ The second was sent in response to a letter from the Presenting Officer, reminding the Registrant of the information that the Substantive Hearing panel indicated would assist future panels, and asking him to provide any supporting documentation by 12.00 on 16 May 2024. To this email the Registrant responded ‘Kindly f**k off. You lot should be ashamed of yourselves.’

9. The Panel took the view that the communication from the Registrant made it clear that he did not want to engage with the Regulator for this Substantive Hearing Review. The Panel determined that in these circumstances an adjournment would be futile. The Registrant had not requested an adjournment, and if the Panel adjourned of its own volition this was unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at a later date.

10. It was the conclusion of the Panel that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself. It was necessary for the Suspension Order to be reviewed before it expired for the protection of the public. The Panel therefore determined to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

11. The Registrant was a Registered Paramedic who at the time of the allegations worked for Care UK as an agency worker in an out of hours General Practice (‘GP’) in a paramedic role in Gloucester.

12. Following two complaints raised by Service Users, the HCPC investigated the Registrant. This culminated in a Substantive Hearing of the Conduct and Competence Committee which was held between 18-21 April and 3-4 July 2023.

13. At that hearing, the Substantive Hearing panel heard evidence from Service User A, Service User B, a witness who at the time of the allegations was Service User A’s partner, and an expert witness, Dr Vincent Clarke. Evidence was also heard from NP, an Advanced Nurse Practitioner and Emergency Care Practitioner. NP had conducted an audit of a sample of the Registrant’s work in the time period that concerns had been raised in. The cases audited by NP were generated by software for the routine monthly audit or chosen at random. As a result, further areas of concern in respect of the Registrant’s clinical practice had been raised.

14. Not all of the original matters within the Allegation heard by the Substantive Hearing panel were found proved. The Substantive Hearing panel found the matters as set out at the beginning of this decision were proved.

15. The Substantive Hearing panel concluded as follows with regards to grounds and impairment:

‘The Panel accepted the legal advice and considered misconduct and the
guidance in Roylance. It agreed with the submissions …. as to
the breaches of the HCPC code of conduct, performance and ethics. In
addition, the Panel found further breaches of Standard 1(in its entirety),
Standard 2.6, Standards 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8, and Standards 8.1 and 8.6 of the
Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics.

The Panel considered the allegations in the round. The Registrant has been
found to have behaved inappropriately in this communication with service
users, kept inadequate records, failed to use the PGD appropriately and
consequently acted out with the scope of his practice. The Panel found that
those deficiencies individually, and taken together, were serious. Each had
the potential to cause harm to service users. The Panel found that the conduct,
as found proved, fell short of what would have been proper in the
circumstances and amounted to misconduct.

The Panel found that its findings in respect of particulars 2 a) and 2 d) were
not of themselves serious and did not amount to misconduct. These particular
incidents were unfortunate and caused some offence to SUA and Person A.
However, these incidents appeared to the Panel to be examples of the
Registrant poorly handling and misinterpreting the situation, and where he
was possibly misunderstood, but this was not conduct that was so serious as
to amount to misconduct.

The Panel next considered impairment of fitness to practice. The conduct
although serious, is capable of being remedied. The Panel considered the
Registrant’s insight and remorse. The Panel considered the material
submitted by the Registrant. He has responded in some detail to the
allegations about SUA and he has apologised and demonstrated some insight
into his conduct. He has reflected and has stated:- “ I am truly and deeply
sorry for any offence, stress and negativity caused to all service users
involved. I have had many years to reflect on these allegations, and I do think
about them every day.”

The Panel found that the Registrant has shown some, but limited insight into
his conduct. He has not fully accepted and acknowledged his conduct and its
impact on service users, the profession and the wider public. His reflections
at times seek to justify his conduct and to deflect responsibility. He has sought
to excuse his conduct in respect of the PGD which he states was not available.
The Panel found that the Registrant has not reflected sufficiently on the PGD
allegations, which are a significant aspect of the findings, and which had the
potential to cause real harm to service users. The Registrant has not provided
any reflection on the HCPC Codes and where and why he breached them.
The Registrant has not attended this hearing and has not given evidence. The
Panel has no evidence before it about any steps the Registrant has taken to
remedy his conduct, including his communication towards service users, his
deficient record keeping, and his approach to the PGD within the scope of his
practice. In all these circumstances, given the limited insight demonstrated
and the lack of any evidence of remediation, the Panel concluded that there
is a real risk of repetition of the misconduct.

The Panel was mindful of the analysis of impairment in the Grant case. It
found that the Registrant has in the past acted, and is likely in the future to
act in a way so as to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm; that he
has in the past brought, and is likely in the future to bring, the profession into
disrepute; and that he has in the past breached, and is likely in the future, to
breach fundamental tenets of the profession, namely respecting service users
and keeping within the scope of his professional practice. The Panel
concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is therefore currently
impaired.

The Panel considered the wider public interest. It decided that the conduct
proved is wide ranging covering conduct with service users, deficient record
keeping and failing to adhere to the PGDs. These are all matters which a
reasonable member of the public would be most concerned about, each
placing service users at real risk of harm. The Panel decided that not to find
impairment in these circumstances would undermine public confidence in the
profession and the regulator, and would fail to uphold and declare proper
professional standards.

The Panel decided that the misconduct was too serious to take no action
or to impose a Caution Order. The Registrant’s actions had the potential to
cause serious harm to service users. Both of these would fail to protect the
public and would undermine public confidence in the profession by failing to
appropriately mark the misconduct as wholly unacceptable.

The Panel next considered imposing a Conditions of Practice Order. It
was mindful of the guidance in paragraphs 106 and 107 of the HCPC
Sanctions Guidance. These are serious and wide-ranging findings that placed
the public at risk of harm and damaged the reputation of the profession. The
Registrant has not engaged in this hearing and the Panel has found there is
limited, albeit developing, insight. There is no evidence of any remediation.
Given the lack of engagement in this hearing, the Panel could not be satisfied
that the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised
and the panel cannot be confident that he would do so. In these
circumstances, the Panel decided that conditions of practice would not be
proportionate, realistic or workable and not be sufficient to protect the public.

The Panel next considered imposing a Suspension Order. It considered
that in light of the seriousness of the misconduct and the lack of remediation
that this sanction would proportionately and appropriately mark the conduct
as wholly unacceptable. The Registrant has some insight and the misconduct
is serious, although the findings are not at the most serious end of the
spectrum of misconduct.

The Panel decided that a nine month Suspension Order was appropriate
and proportionate to mark the seriousness of the Panel’s findings but short
enough to encourage the Registrant to further develop his insight and
remediation. That will serve to protect the public, uphold proper standards and
maintain confidence in the profession. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off
Order would go further than was necessary and would be disproportionate in
light of its findings, and would be punitive.

The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by
the following:-

• The Registrant’s attendance at any subsequent review
• Submissions on reflections regarding the Panel’s findings
• Evidence of remediation particularly regarding
interpersonal skills
• Up to date references and testimonials.’

16. A first review of the Suspension Order was due to be heard on 4 April 2024. On that date, the Registrant had not been provided with the required 28 days’ notice of the hearing. The panel on that occasion took the view that it would not have been fair or appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, and the case was adjourned.

17. A further panel was convened on 29 April 2024. The Registrant had again not been provided with the required amount of notice. That panel was of the view that the failure to comply with the provision of a sufficient notice period as required by the Rules left open the possibility that the Registrant had not been given sufficient time to consider his position fully. That panel was concerned that the Registrant had been given confusing information regarding the date for the hearing and the 28 days required by the Rules had been significantly shortened. However, that panel was also aware that the Suspension Order would lapse upon expiry on 2 May 2024. In these circumstances, it balanced the need to protect the public with fairness to the Registrant. It extended the Suspension Order for a further period of 2 months upon expiry. This was so that the Order could be fully reviewed by a panel once the Registrant had been given the appropriate notice of the hearing as required by the Rules.

HCPC Submissions

18. The HCPC requested that the Panel extend the current Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. It was submitted that this was effectively a first substantive review hearing, as the Registrant had been given insufficient notice of the previous two review hearings.

19. The HCPC submitted that the Suspension Order was still necessary to protect the public. A further 12 months would allow the Registrant to engage and give him one further opportunity to show remediation.

20. It was submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently was still impaired on both the personal and public grounds. There was an ongoing duty to protect the public from the Registrant who had been found to breach fundamental tenets of the profession. Since 4 July 2024, the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC in a manner that would assist the Panel with its decision making. He had sent vulgar messages which were not helpful to the Panel’s decision making.

21. Further, the HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the public interest component. The HCPC referred to the test set out in the case of Grant, with regards to the public interest and stated that an Interim Order of Suspension was still required in these circumstances.

22. Finally, the HCPC indicated that although Strike Off was an option, potentially the Registrant was going through a difficult time and should be afforded one final opportunity before such a drastic measure as Strike Off should be imposed. The HCPC were willing to give the Registrant the opportunity to remediate his failings. The HCPC submitted that the Panel should consider a Suspension Order for a further period of 12 months.

Legal Advice

23. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) requires all conditions of practice orders and suspension order to be reviewed before they expire. The Panel was reminded of its powers and referred to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ dated November 2023. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to guidance from case law, including the cases of Yusuff v GMC (2018 EWHC 13 (Admin), Abrahaem v GMC (2008) EWC (Admin) and Professional Standards Authority v. Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 an CHRE v NMC and Grant (2011) EWHC 927.

Decision

24. The Panel was mindful that at this mandatory review, it could not ‘go behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. Its role is to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired currently. During its decision making process, the Panel had due regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ dated November 2023, and the HCPC Sanctions Policy dated March 2019.

25. The Panel had no information at all to help it come to a decision that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired. It noted that the persuasive burden to demonstrate this is on the Registrant. The Registrant had not demonstrated any further remorse since the Substantive Hearing and had not engaged appropriately with the Regulator.

26. The Panel found that the Registrant had been given a clear indication of the steps that he could take to demonstrate that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired, both in the decision of the Substantive Hearing Panel on 4 July 2023 and in the letter sent to him by the HCPC on 9 May 2024. The Registrant had not provided any evidence of CPD points, testimonials, references, or reflection. There was no information available to the Panel as to what the Registrant was doing now in terms of employment.

27. The two abusive emails sent by the Registrant to the Regulator were considered by the Panel to reflect a pattern of behaviour, particularly in circumstances in which the Substantive Hearing panel had made findings about the Registrant’s use of inappropriate language to and in front of service users. The Panel found that there was a clear risk of repetition in such circumstances, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practice in respect of the personal component remained impaired.

28. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired on the public component. The Registrant had provided nothing to the Panel to enable it to conclude that the original concerns had been addressed. The Substantive Hearing panel had made findings that the Registrant had acted outside the scope of his practice, and could have put service users, including children, at risk. A well informed member of the public would be seriously concerned if the Registrant was allowed to continue to practice in these circumstances. The Panel concluded that there was a risk that both the Profession and the Regulator would be brought into disrepute if an order continuing to restrict the Registrant’s practice was not made.

29. In considering what type of order was necessary, the Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy and worked through these in ascending order. It concluded that the original findings against the Registrant were serious. As such, taking no action or imposing a Caution Order would be entirely insufficient to address the ongoing concerns around the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

30. The Panel went on to consider Conditions of Practice. It noted that Conditions of Practice require engagement from a Registrant, and something to suggest that he could comply with any conditions imposed. The Panel had no information about the Registrant’s current work or whether he intended to return to practice as a Paramedic, and as such there were no workable, practical or verifiable conditions that could be imposed that would address the failings in the Registrant’s fitness to practise at the current stage.

31. The Panel then considered extending the current Suspension Order. It noted that the HCPC had taken a compassionate approach to the Registrant. It took the view that a Registrant should behave in a professional manner at all times, regardless of what is happening in their lives. The Panel was persuaded that a Suspension Order was appropriate primarily because this the first full review that had taken place. It agreed with the HCPC that it was reasonable to offer the Registrant one last opportunity to engage appropriately in order to keep his registration as a Paramedic going forwards.

32. The option of Strike Off was open to the Panel. It seriously considered this, paying due regard to the Sanctions Policy, as it appeared that the Registrant was unwilling to resolve matters at this time. The Panel took the view that it was disproportionate to strike the Registrant off at a first review hearing, in circumstances in which his previous misconduct was remediable and described by the Substantive Hearing panel as ‘not at the most serious end of the spectrum of misconduct.’ The Panel agreed that the conduct was still remediable, and that the Registrant could be fit to practise in the future if he engaged with the process, demonstrated insight and remediation.

33. The Panel took the view that a Suspension Order provides sufficient protection for the public and was a fair and proportionate response. It also had regard to proportionality when considering the length of the Suspension Order. It considered imposing a Suspension Order for less than 12 months but determined that this would not reflect the seriousness of the position the Registrant was now in with regards to his fitness to practise. The Panel determined that a further 12-month Suspension Order was a proportionate and fair sanction. It also hoped that this would give the Registrant the opportunity to reflect on his position and sufficient time to demonstrate remediation if he wished to do so.

34. The Panel recognised that the structured approach suggested by the HCPC would be helpful to a panel reviewing this order in future. A future panel could be assisted by:

i) A reflective piece with regard to the failings identified in the Substantive Hearing, together with their impact on service users, other professionals and the public;

ii) Evidence from you as to any steps you may have taken in order to remediate your failings;

iii) References and testimonials in respect of any employment or work, either paid or unpaid, which you may have undertaken since the events in question;

iv) Evidence to support your adherence to the Suspension; and

v) Evidence of any Continuing Professional Development (CPD) undertaken to keep your professional skills up to date.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Matthew Lee Taylor from the Register for a further period of 12 months.

The Order imposed today will apply from 2 July 2024.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 2 July 2025.

History of Hearings for Mr Matthew Lee Taylor