Scott O'Sullivan

Preliminary Matters

Witness Order

1. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Corrie, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for a Witness Order to compel the attendance at the hearing of witness LC who had failed to respond to a Notice of Hearing and was not contactable by the HCPC at that time.

2. Secondly, Mr Corrie made an application to adjourn the hearing to enable the Witness Order, if granted, to be served on LC.

3. There was no objection to these applications and the Legal Assessor gave advice to the Panel to consider the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled Witness Engagement and Postponement and Adjournment of Hearings. The Panel has the power to issue a Witness Order to compel the attendance of a witness under Rule 10 of the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended (the Rules). The Panel granted the applications to enable a Witness Order to be served on LC to compel his attendance and to adjourn the hearing until the following day at 09:30. This was because LC was an important witness and time was required to serve the Witness Order; therefore an adjournment was necessary.

4. On the morning of Day 2 of the proceedings, Mr Corrie informed the Panel that those instructing him had had contact with LC and that LC had asked them to telephone him at mid-day. Mr Corrie applied for an adjournment until mid-day with a view to establishing LC’s availability and/or willingness to give evidence. The Panel considered a file note from the contact with LC and refused the adjournment. Following the Panel announcing that it had refused the adjournment, an update was provided that LC would be available to give evidence remotely later that afternoon and an adjournment was therefore unnecessary. The HCPC proceeded to open the case.

5. The Allegation was put to the Registrant and the Registrant denied it in full.

Background

6. Mr Corrie opened the case to the Panel. He said that it is alleged that in May 2007 the Registrant had non-consensual sexual intercourse with Person A and that his conduct in doing so was sexually motivated. At the time the Registrant was aged 18 and Person A was 17 years old. They had commenced a consensual sexual relationship for a short time which had ended in April or May 2007, before the rape was alleged to have taken place.

7. In May 2007 during the course of an evening, the HCPC alleged, Person A was raped by the Registrant. The Registrant denied that any such incident had ever taken place.

8. The Registrant was charged with an offence of rape and subsequently acquitted in criminal proceedings in 2021. The standard of proof in the criminal proceedings was beyond reasonable doubt. The HCPC submitted that the Panel should reach its own decision on the Allegation in these proceedings and should not be influenced by the verdict of the jury. The HCPC stated that the standard of proof to be applied in these proceedings is the civil standard of proof, in other words the balance of probabilities.

9. Person A’s evidence was provided in the form of a video recording which was played during the hearing (and which was referred to at times as the ABE evidence) together with a transcript of that recording. The HCPC also relied on the witness statements and the oral evidence of Person A and LC. The latter gave evidence remotely.

10. The HCPC also relied on extracts from Person A’s medical records and a statement from Witness AT, a psychologist who Person A had consulted in 2017.

11. The HCPC provided a number of photographs of the Windmill pub that had been taken over the years.

12. The Registrant gave oral evidence denying that the alleged incident had happened at all.

13. The Registrant had provided a bundle of documents which included a witness statement, details of Norfolk Constabulary’s attempts to trace staff and records from Wymondham School and screenshot images of the Windmill pub. The bundle also included evidence of positive feedback which had been submitted to his NHS employer (“the Trust”) by or on behalf of numerous grateful patients. He also provided positive testimonials from professional colleagues at the Trust, some of whom had known him since 2012 and some of whom had regularly worked with him directly as crew on a double-staffed ambulance for several years. He submitted a positive testimonial from his commanding officer in the Air Cadets who had known him for some eleven years.

14. In the course of Person A’s cross-examination by Mr Lambis, an extract of her cross-examination in the Crown Court proceedings was displayed on screen (and subsequently made available to the Panel).

Evidence

Evidence of Witness LC

15. The HCPC called LC to give evidence remotely. He confirmed that the contents of his statement, dated 22 October 2021, were true and described the layout of the Windmill public house. He was living there in 2007 with his father who owned the premises. He knew Person A as a friend and customer.

16. In his statement to the police, dated 22 January 2019, LC stated that at some point between 2006 and 2008 he remembered Person A coming into the pub “in a state” and he knew that “something was up”. He recalled her telling him that she had either been raped or “tried to be raped” but he could not recall for certain whether the pub was open or where they spoke. He did recall walking her home because she was so upset. He stated he could not recall the name of the other person who was involved.

17. In his statement to the HCPC, dated 22 October 2021, LC stated that the event in question happened in 2007 on a Friday or Saturday night. Person A and a few girlfriends were drinking at the pub. Late in the evening LC heard a banging noise and saw Person A knocking on the window at the front of the pub. LC let her in and could see she was crying and dishevelled and distressed. He took her upstairs, tried to calm her down, and she told him that she had been raped by the Registrant. LC wanted to go and find the Registrant, but she told him she didn’t want LC to get into trouble. LC advised her to report what had happened to the police. LC walked Person A home and, when he got back to the pub, told his father what had happened.

18. LC was contacted by the police in about 2019 and gave evidence at the Crown Court hearing in 2021. LC was cross-examined by Mr Lambis, in these HCPC proceedings, as to why he had not named the Registrant in his police statement in 2019. LC stated that he was more concerned for the welfare of Person A. He stated that he was in prison when the police had interviewed him and that that interview had been sprung on him. He subsequently refreshed his memory by speaking to his father and Person A and said his statements were accurate. He accepted he had served a prison sentence of four and a half years for assaulting a police officer. He denied having any grudge against emergency workers such as the Registrant, who is now a Paramedic.

19. Under cross-examination, LC said that on the night in question, Person A was in the pub drinking with her friends and that he recalled that they all left and went somewhere else. He said he remembered the Registrant being in the pub drinking too. He recalled Person A banging on the window in hysterics and him running to unlock the door. He said he thought it was the back door. He was asked about who was in the pub and whether it was his dad, his dad’s friends and him all having a lock-in. He said he actually thought it was just him and his dad and it wasn’t a lock-in. As to the time that the pub closed, LC said he thought it was around 11.30 to 12:00.

20. LC was asked if he was still friends with Person A and he said he was but that they were not in regular contact and didn’t speak often. He said the only time they had spoken in recent years was to do with these events. It was put to LC that in 2019 he told the police that he couldn’t recall who the other person was and that in the Crown Court he had said he couldn’t recall if she had told him who the other person was. Mr Lambis pointed out the inconsistencies between these earlier statements and the HCPC statement where LC had said Person A told him she had been raped by the Registrant.

21. LC responded that it was a long time ago and he had subsequently refreshed his memory by speaking to his father and Person A.

22. The Panel asked LC if the Registrant was drinking in the pub that night. He replied that he wouldn’t be able to recall Mr O’Sullivan by name or face but that there were people there, Person A’s friends and the Registrant’s friends, so that’s why he knows the Registrant was there. He added that hand on heart he wouldn’t be able to recall the Registrant by face or by name and that Person A “came back to me and explained”.

Evidence of Person A

23. A video recording (the ABE) of Person A giving a statement to the police was played and Person A confirmed the truth of its contents. She also confirmed the truth of the contents of her witness statement dated 7 July 2021 and that she wished for the statement and the ABE to stand as her evidence in these proceedings. The Panel also heard oral evidence from Person A. Person A described visiting the pub on the night of the incident in May 2007.

24. On the night in question Person A went to the pub with her friends GL and S. They sat together having drinks for about an hour during which time she received a text message from the Registrant who was drinking at the Queen’s Head pub in Wymondham and who wanted to see her. In the course of an exchange of texts, Person A asked the Registrant what he wanted and agreed to meet with the Registrant. Person A then received a text message from the Registrant at about 9.30, saying that he was outside the pub and asking her to meet him outside. Person A stated that the Registrant had ended the relationship a couple of weeks previously, but that she had no negative feelings towards him. Person A stated that she agreed to meet him due to naivety, that he was her first boyfriend and there was no reason not to meet him as they were still friends. She went outside to meet him and they walked around outside the pub chatting for some time. They were at the side of the pub next to a single storey extension and were talking normally, when the Registrant kissed Person A. It was an unexpected but consensual kiss. Person A then pushed the Registrant away and asked him “what are you doing?”. Person A said his response was “I’ll rape you”.

25. Person A stated that she was not expecting such a callous response and was shocked and tried to comprehend what he was saying. She stated that her body froze, and he pulled up her skirt with one hand and moved her knickers to one side. His penis then entered her vagina without her consent, and she stumbled back against the wall of the pub. She said both her feet were on the floor. Person A said she was wearing a denim skirt and boots with a wedge but not a high heel.

26. Person A stated that LC knew the Registrant had raped her because she told him at the time it happened. She did not give him many details. LC wanted to fight the Registrant, but Person A asked him not to do so and LC walked her home. The following day, she was due to visit the university in Lincoln when she received text messages from the Registrant stating, “I did something last night sorry if I hurt you”.

27. Person A stated this text from the Registrant was significant and showed something vile had happened. She was tearful in the car going to the university and had shown bruises around her vagina and thighs to her grandmother on the Saturday morning or possibly on the Sunday but had not told her what had happened. She said her grandmother would have known how it had happened although she had not said anything to her. Person A thought her grandmother would get help for her. Person A said she found it too difficult to discuss what had happened with her father because she was embarrassed.

28. Person A stated that at the time she was a size 10. She described putting her clothing from that night in a satchel and retaining it because it may have been evidence that could be used. There were also text messages on her mobile phone which she retained for the same reason, namely in case she went to the police.

29. Person A said that in about May 2016, when she was pregnant with her first child and approaching the due date, she decided that she no longer wanted to keep the items in the satchel and got rid of them. Around this time, she and her wife were going through things to make space for the baby and they came across the mobile phone in amongst some electronic items and decided to get rid of it as well. She explained that she had always found the month of May difficult because it was the anniversary of the assault. She would ruminate more on what had happened, questioning everything and thinking that she should have been stronger and done something about it at the time. She got rid of the items because she was trying to move on and did not want to carry what had happened into her life as a parent. She thought that if she got rid of them, she could start afresh. She did not want her experience as a mother to be tarnished. She had no intention of reporting the matter to the police by then. However, when a friend of hers disclosed that they had been sexually assaulted in 2018, this made her reflect again on what had happened to her.

30. Person A said that back in May or June 2007 she told a school counsellor what had happened. She said the counsellor had told the Head of Sixth Form and the Deputy Head in about August 2007. Person A stated she was not satisfied by the process they followed. Her exam results had been disappointing and the school was mainly concerned with this and whether she needed to repeat the school year rather than with the assault. Person A said she felt let down by the school.

31. Person A said that about a year later in 2008, around the time of the May anniversary, she reported the matter to a uniformed member of staff in a community police bus. She said the person had taken notes and told her the issue could not be dealt with there. She was told to report the matter to a police station, and she later received a voicemail from a female caller who did not sound compassionate. It felt like the person was ticking off a list she was dealing with that day. Person A said it felt like she was not important. Therefore Person A did not pursue her complaint to the Police at that time.

32. When she was cross-examined during this substantive hearing, Person A stated that in 2007 she was living with her father, grandmother, stepmother and siblings. They were close at the time, but they are no longer close. She knew LC from school, and she had seen him at the time of the incident in 2007. She had a relationship for one to two months with the Registrant and used to meet him in free periods or during her lunch break.

33. Person A agreed that at the time she was about 5 foot 2 inches tall and she thought the Registrant was about 5 foot 5 inches with what she described as a small to medium build. She met the Registrant’s parents at his home on one occasion and watched Eastenders with them. She did not introduce the Registrant to her family. She was attracted to the Registrant physically and he was fun but there was more emphasis on sex than going out. They never had sex at her home, but they did at his parents’ home at least three times. This was consensual. Sex between them never took place standing up.

34. The relationship came to an end because the Registrant said he was travelling to America that summer and then going off to university in Brighton. He ended the relationship, she could not recall how, there was no particular reason, but there was no animosity. Person A did not see it as a big thing. She was upset but not devastated.

35. Under cross-examination, Person A agreed that she and her friends preferred to go to the  (REDACTED) pub and that the Registrant and his friends frequented the Queen’s Head pub in town. On the night in question, the Registrant and her friends had been in the pub for about an hour when she received a text from the Registrant saying that he would come and meet her outside the pub. She said they had been split up about a week or two and that she had no negative feelings towards the Registrant. She saw no issue with meeting him and did not think there was any danger.

36. Person A said she could not remember their conversation outside the pub but that they were just chatting and she did not ask him what he wanted. Person A said there was not a great deal of passing traffic and that it was not busy with pedestrians. The pub was never as busy as the pubs in town and customers were going in the other door. The assault had happened at the side of the pub. None of her friends had come out to check on her during the time that she was outside with the Registrant.

37. Person A agreed that she had been wearing a denim skirt and footwear with a slight wedge. She agreed that they had had an unexpected but consensual kiss but that then she had pushed the Registrant away and asked him what he was doing. When questioned about her reaction to the Registrant allegedly saying he would rape her, Person A said she was too shocked to comprehend it. When asked if she had tried to run away, scream or grab anyone’s attention, Person A said no. She said that unfortunately her body had frozen and she could not move or say anything. She said this was not a choice. When asked if she had thought about the nearby food truck or her friends who were nearby, Person A said her only thought was “what do I need to do to survive, which is to do nothing”. When it was put to Person A that the Registrant had not done anything and that she could have pushed him away, she replied, “I ask myself that”.

38. When asked how the Registrant had pulled up her skirt, Person A said she did not remember. It was put to her that in the Crown Court she had said he had used both hands but Person A said that she could not remember. She agreed that she had told the police that the heels and soles of her shoes had remained on the floor and added that she was not really steady. She said that the Registrant’s whole penis had entered her vagina and that she was against the wall standing up. She could not say where the Registrant’s hands were but that he was holding her all over. He had not moved her legs apart. She denied that with her being shorter than the Registrant this would have been very difficult.

39. Person A agreed that she had disposed of her underwear, skirt and footwear. When asked whether there would have been semen on the underwear, she said she did not know but that there probably was semen on her footwear. She said she was more taken aback about the footwear. This was a reference to her witness statement and recorded ABE evidence in which she had described the Registrant’s semen dripping out of her and on to her footwear. “I recall looking down and seeing his ejaculate had dripped onto my shoes”.

40. When asked what time she had gone back inside the pub, Person A said about 11.30. She said LC was not a good friend but that she knew him. She said she had not told LC the Registrant had raped her but that LC knew. She confirmed that she had received the Registrant’s text at about 9.30 and that he had come to the pub about 9.30 or 10.00. When it was put to her that she had therefore been outside with the Registrant for about an hour and a half, Person A said “no, on reflection”. She disagreed that the pub was closed when she went back inside and said it was closing and her friends were not there.

41. Person A was reminded of the details in her witness statement which stated that she had gone straight to the toilets when she went back into the pub and only afterwards realised that her friends were not there. She confirmed that at that point LC had said she looked like shit and that she had told him that something had happened. Person A said, “I think LC understood what occurred”. When it was put to her that nothing in her statement said she had named the Registrant to LC, she said “no, but I believe I did in my ABE”. When asked if she had used the word ‘rape’, Person A replied, “I said assaulted. I didn’t explicitly say rape”. She said she did not say who it was or where it had happened. When it was put to Person A that she would remember if she had had to knock on windows, she said she did not have to do this. Person A said she did not see LC’s dad that night but did see one or two older gentlemen.

42. When asked how she remembered so precisely the words of the Registrant’s text the following day, Person A said that it was significant to have done something so vile and yet not understand. She said it was engraved on her mind. It was put to her that the words of the text also unequivocally supported what she was saying. Person A replied this was the reason she had kept the phone so long.

43. When asked if her father had picked up from her that there was something wrong, she said he thought she was tearful because she was going to leave home to go to university.

44. When asked about showing the purple bruising to her grandmother, Person A said she had done this the following morning, that the bruising was purple and was around the opening of the vagina and on her legs. She said she did not take photographs. She confirmed that she had not told her grandmother the truth about what happened but that her grandmother would have known because they were close. Person A said that by telling her grandmother, she hoped that she would get the help she needed. She hoped that her grandmother would tell her father so she would get the emotional support she needed and so that a parent would take the reins. She said she had made up the story about falling over when putting in a tampon because she was embarrassed. She said she had to lie to her grandmother to protect herself and because it was still a vulnerable situation.

45. Person A was asked about her claim that the Registrant had tried to intimidate her outside the exam hall. It was put to her that she was trying to portray a bad image of the Registrant and she replied, “what would it gain me?”. When asked if she had spoken to the counsellor about the intimidation, Person A said that the counsellor had asked her why she had not contacted the police. Person A said that she had spoken to the Head of Sixth Form, and the Deputy Head, because the counsellor said she had to. They had asked her if she was ok and how best they could support her whether by arranging re-sits or a year out. Person A said they appeared to be more concerned about academia and how the school was perceived. When asked if they had said that the police, safeguarding services or social services or at the very least her parents needed to be alerted, Person A said, “there was a discussion with my dad and the head of sixth form but no, they did not, in terms of safeguarding, no they did not”. Person A said in hindsight, having learned about safeguarding, she now realised how greatly they had failed her.

46. When it was put to Person A that this hearing was the first time she had mentioned her father being there at the school, Person A said that she believed she had mentioned it before when she spoke with the people at the SARC centre, and to the civilian staff, before giving her statement to the police. She said she believed her father was with her when she spoke to the head of year. It was put to Person A that she had not said this before and she said she had not said it explicitly. When it was put to her that she had never said it before, Person A denied this. It was put to Person A that she was now saying her father was with her when she reported a rape to a senior member of her school and they did nothing about it. Person A said that was correct.

47. When asked about the police bus she had approached in 2008, Person A said it was like a yellow community police bus, like a police version of a library bus. Person A said she spoke to someone in uniform but did not know if it was a police officer, a community support officer or a civilian member of staff. She had said she needed to report an assault, a rape, and she was told that they could not deal with it there and that someone would contact her. She said that the person she spoke to took notes but that she did not get as far as saying where the assault had taken place, who had done it or that she had reported it to the school.

48. When asked whether she had told the school or the person at the police bus that she had kept the mobile phone with the text and the clothing and footwear, Person A said there was no need for her to tell the school about those things because that was not their concern and, as for the police, it did not get that far. Person A confirmed that she had given her contact details to the person at the police bus.

49. Person A was questioned about the evidence she had given in the Crown Court. Mr Lambis put to Person A that at no stage in the Crown Court did she mention that the police had made contact with her in a voicemail after she had been to the police bus. Person A explained this by saying that it was because of the way the questions had been posed in the Crown Court. She said “but I was very clear both in my statement and the initial statement taken by the police when they came to my house. To the effects of my statement given to the Health and Care Professions Council. So when I spoke to [Detective Constable] DC LS, when he came round with that officer ... I cannot remember her name. I did say then and he even had a question asking did they take any details down, what did they take down? And then going onto the telephone conversation as to why I did not call back. This is kind of a bit taken out of context in court. It is not as clear on the conversation”.

50. It was put to Person A that the answer to the question was there had been no mention by her of the voicemail in the Crown Court. Person A said that she had meant that there had been no further calls. She said her point was the police did not call her back again and after the initial call there was no follow up. She said that was supported by the statement and by notes that Detective Constable LS has. Person A denied that she had wanted to include the voicemail in her HCPC statement to add credibility to her account because this was information she had already given to the police prior to the court case.

51. Person A also denied that she had failed to mention her use of marijuana in the Crown Court to make herself look better.

52. Person A was asked about the disposal of the mobile phone, footwear, skirt and underwear in 2016 after having kept them for nine years. She said that she did realise how important these items could have been but said that she had not pre-empted the situation taking place where she reported the assault to the police. When it was put to her that she knew the items did not support her version of events and that the assault had not taken place, Person A disagreed.

53. When asked in re-examination whether she had spoken to LC since the Crown Court case, Person A said a few times but not directly after the Crown Court proceedings because LC was not contactable. Person A said she had possibly spoken to LC three times since the Crown Court proceedings but had not to her recollection ever spoken to him about the substance of what had happened that night.

54. In response to a Panel question, Person A said that she and the Registrant had always used a condom during consensual sex.
55. In addition to the contents of the HCPC’s bundle of evidence, the HCPC entered into evidence the witness statement of AT (a psychologist who had been consulted by Person A in 2017) and extracts from Person A’s medical records. The HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the witness statement of SB (a nurse practitioner from Person A’s GP surgery) at pages 24 and 25 of the HCPC’s bundle. The HCPC also drew the Panel’s attention to the transcript of the Registrant’s police interview, and the photographs of the Windmill pub.

Admission by HCPC

56. At the conclusion of the HCPC’s case, Mr Corrie read an agreed admission of facts as follows:

1. On behalf of the HCPC, Blake Morgan asked the Norfolk Constabulary whether a rape allegation was reported to it in 2008.

2. On 26 September 2022, the Constabulary responded in the following terms:

“This was a historic crime, brought to our attention some years after. There is no report made by the victim in 2008.”

57. The HCPC closed its case.

Evidence of the Registrant

58. The Panel heard oral evidence from the Registrant who confirmed the contents of his witness statement, dated 7 March 2024. He is employed as a Band 6 Paramedic by the East of England Ambulance Trust (“the Trust”). His employment with the Trust commenced in 2008 and he became a Paramedic in 2018. He was registered in 2019 with the HCPC. At the time of his registration he made the HCPC aware of the police investigation which had begun in 2018.

59. The Registrant said that he loves his job and has made a positive contribution to his profession and his community and provided testimonials to confirm this. He is married with a son aged 14.

60. The Registrant described moving from Sussex to Norfolk at the age of thirteen. He had a happy childhood. He joined the Air Training Corps which was an RAF-funded youth organisation and he trained as a referee to support his younger siblings’ football club. He enjoyed school and was quite academic.  He had originally planned to study accountancy and, before getting his A level results, he had been given an unconditional offer from Brighton University.

61. The Registrant said, that before this case, he had never been in trouble with the police or had any regulatory history.

62. The Registrant could not recall the witness LC being at his school while he was there. He first met Person A on a night out at a time when they were attending the same school. They then began a relationship which was primarily a sexual relationship and lasted for six to eight weeks. The Registrant described being a busy teenager. On Friday evenings he would visit the Queens Head public house with his group of friends and fellow students. Most weekends he was refereeing. He would occasionally go out on a Saturday evening with his Air Corps friends but his going out night was predominantly Fridays. (REDACTED)

63. Regarding the relationship with Person A, they used to go to his parents’ house predominantly at lunch times and free periods, when his parents were working, to have sex. His parents did not know about this. They never had sex standing up. The Registrant said that he probably ended the relationship with Person A by text message. He did not want to hurt her feelings and told her it was because he had plans to travel and was then going to university. Shortly after the break-up his study leave began. The Registrant thought the study leave had been a couple of weeks in May.

64. In November 2018 the police came to the Registrant’s home and, for the first time, he was asked to recall the events of 2007. The Registrant said that with hindsight he should have contacted a lawyer but he had thought there must have been a mix up. He had nothing to hide, so he drove himself to the police station and gave an interview without representation. The interview was recorded on tapes which could not subsequently be played. A year or so later, he was asked to re-do the interview and he did so, this time with a solicitor. He explained to the police that he had visited the pub in 2007 but there had never been a sexual encounter with Person A at the pub. He had never had sex standing up and he had always used a condom when he had consensual intercourse with Person A. He was not made aware of any allegation prior to 2018, had not been contacted by the school or by Person A and he had not had any contact with her family. He would never have said to Person A “I’ll rape you”.

65. Under cross-examination by Mr Corrie, the Registrant agreed that he may have been at school during exam time in summer 2007 when Person A was also present at the school. In August 2007 when he received his examination results, he was no longer a pupil at the school. He had had a short relationship with Person A which began in March or April 2007 and lasted six to eight weeks. It was not a serious relationship and they split up in May 2007. The end of the relationship was amicable, and Person A had nothing against him. The Registrant stated he had a conventional sex life with no “rough play” which would cause bruising. His relationship with Person A was not a fulfilling relationship but he was happy with the sexual side. On a Friday night the Registrant would drink six to eight vodka and cokes and would be drunk, but in control. When asked if he had still had Person A’s number in his phone or whether he had got rid of it, the Registrant said he didn’t know but that he couldn’t recall deleting it. He said he had not sent her a text asking her to meet at the pub. The Registrant said that it was not true that he had met Person A at the pub for sex, kissed her, said I’ll rape you and had sexual intercourse without her consent. He denied sending a text message to Person A the following day saying he’d done something wrong and was sorry. He denied following this up with a number of texts and denied that Person A had asked him to leave her alone.

66. The Registrant accepted that such a serious allegation would have an impact on his registration with the HCPC and that he had a lot to lose if it were found to be true.

67. The Panel asked the Registrant why he referred to the back of the car park and he replied that he thought he was referring to something that had already been raised in this conversation or in the previous interview. The Panel then asked why the Registrant mentioned sex standing up in his second interview and he said he could only assume it had previously been raised in the interview or had been referred to in the 2018 interview. The Panel asked the Registrant if he knew what height he was when he was eighteen and he said his height was 5 feet 9 inches.

68. In re-examination, Mr Lambis asked the Registrant if he remembered, when he was originally interviewed, if the police put to him what person A was alleging, specifically if they put to him that Person A said her feet were on the ground. The Registrant replied that he believed they described how she said it happened.

69. Mr Lambis drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s bundle of documents. He then closed his case.

HCPC Submissions

70. Mr Corrie submitted that this case concerns a single issue, did the Registrant rape Person A? He reminded the Panel that the burden of proof is on the HCPC and the requisite standard is the balance of probabilities. If something is inherently improbable then a greater cogency of evidence is required to establish it is more likely than not to have taken place. Mr Corrie submitted that the standard of proof has been met in this case and that the Panel should find that Person A's evidence is correct, based on all the evidence presented to the Panel. He reminded the Panel that it must not speculate on why certain individuals did not come to give evidence. He submitted that, in the absence of direct witnesses, central to the Panel’s deliberations is the assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly Person A and the Registrant. He made submissions on how to approach the assessment of witness evidence.

71. Mr Corrie referred to the case of Byrne v General Medical Council, [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin), paragraphs 17 – 20:

1. The Panel in assessing the credibility of witnesses must take account of the unreliability of memory and test the evidence by reference to objective facts and contemporaneous documents to reach factual conclusions.

2. Nevertheless, the demeanour of a witness might in an appropriate case may be a significant factor and the lower court is best placed to assess this.

3. There may not be much or any corroborating documentary evidence and this is not always required. Where there are conflicting accounts, the court may put substantial reliance on the oral evidence of the complainant in preference to the defendant’s. There is no rule that corroboration is required.

4. In a case where the complainant provides an oral account that the defendant flatly denies and where there is little or no other evidence, it is commonplace for there to be inconsistency and confusion in some details. Nevertheless, the task of the court is to consider whether the core allegations are true.

72. Mr Corrie observed that the Panel may feel 2, 3 and 4 above apply in this case and that reliance could be placed on the evidence of the complainant. He reminded the Panel that the gold standard is to look for objective facts and contemporaneous documents to judge the evidence.

73. Mr Corrie also referred to the case of Dutta v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin).

74. Mr Corrie reminded the Panel that this is not a criminal case and that it must put preconceptions to one side. There is no such thing as a typical rapist, typical rape victim or typical reaction to rape. The Panel should consider Person A’s evidence that she froze, there was nothing she could do and so she did not scream or seek help. This was an understandable reaction and is not inconsistent or unlikely in view of her evidence. The Panel should bear in mind that the delay since 2007, and the outcome of the criminal trial, should not cause the Panel necessarily to doubt the veracity of Person A’s account. She had explained that the trigger to her complaint was when a friend experienced a sexual assault and this brought the events of 2007 back, causing her to go to the police in 2018. Mr Corrie submitted that this explanation is plausible and reliable and is supported by the medical records of 2018 and AT’s police statement.

75. Mr Corrie noted that LC did not witness what is alleged to have occurred outside the public house, but he gave evidence of what he says he was told and of Person A’s demeanour when she came into the pub. Mr Corrie noted that it may be suggested that LC’s evidence was inconsistent with Person A’s as to timings, who was in the pub, whether the door was locked and exactly what was said by Person A, whether he knew the Registrant at the time or whether the Registrant was in the pub or not. LC may be criticised for his criminal record, for having been in prison and for his recent arrest. LC said that Person A had explained to him afterwards that they had all been drinking with friends in the pub that night and this may have caused him to make an assumption that Mr O’Sullivan was in the pub that night. Mr Corrie submitted that this did not mean LC was unreliable as to the core issues.

76. Mr Corrie reminded the Panel that, rather than being eager to come and mislead the Panel, LC had been a reluctant witness. If he was simply “helping a mate out”, he would have been keen to give evidence. It would make more sense for his account to be consistent with Person A’s if they were colluding. LC had given evidence and provided witness statements stating Person A was dishevelled and distressed and had told him she had been raped or tried to be raped. He then walked her home. Mr Corrie submitted that the Panel can rely on the evidence of LC as to the core issues as he gives direct evidence as to the demeanour of Person A and as to recent complaint.

77. Person A explained that she disposed of evidence relating to the rape, prior to the birth of her son, in an act of catharsis, an attempt to shed the past and look to the future. Mr Corrie said that the suggestion that this was a deliberate act to destroy evidence that would not support her case in the event of a future complaint was unlikely and complicated.

78. As to the police’s information that they have no record of a 2008 report from Person A, Mr Corrie submitted that it was possible that a report in the circumstances described by Person A might not necessarily have generated a record or a crime number. He added that Person A’s explanation of having received an impersonal voicemail and not following it up was credible and plausible.

79. Mr Corrie then went on to deal with Person A’s evidence that she told a school counsellor about the rape in May or June of 2007 who told her it had to be raised further and thereafter there was a conversation with the Head of Sixth Form and the Deputy Head. He said the chronology was important and that it was apparent from the ABE and Person A’s oral evidence that this conversation was after she had received her exam results. This conversation must therefore have occurred in August when the Registrant was no longer a pupil at the school and so the focus was not on how to deal with him. Rather the focus was on Person A and on how she could re-sit her exams. Regarding the absence of any recollection of this on the part of the three members of staff at the school, Mr Corrie asked the Panel to bear in mind that they were contacted twelve years after the event and that the school does not keep records after pupils reach the age of 25. The absence of evidence from the school and from the police as to these complaints by Person A is consistent with Person A being let down by the school and the police, as she described.

80. Person A stated she had purple bruising caused by the rape and, although no photographs were taken, she did show the bruising to her grandmother. There was no rough sex with Person A, according to the Registrant, which would explain the bruising.

81. As to the suggestion that it was impossible for a rape to occur standing up because of the difference in their heights, Mr Corrie said this was not necessarily the case and all kinds of things are possible. In any event, a rape is traumatic for the victim and Person A not being entirely aware of the position of her limbs is unsurprising.

82. It is not suggested that Person A is mistaken about what the Registrant did. His case is that she has lied and then disposed of items of evidence, deliberately to support this lie. There is no reason for Person A to make up a false allegation against the Registrant. Person A has made a complaint in 2018, provided evidence to the Crown Court in 2021 and given her account to the HCPC and the Panel. Why would Person A make up such an allegation and put herself through this process? The explanation is that her allegation of rape is true.

83. Person A’s account is supported by the following facts. The Registrant had the opportunity when he was in town on Friday nights at the pub he frequented, to walk for ten minutes to the pub which Person A frequented. He had a motive in that he had been in a recent sexual relationship with Person A which he enjoyed. They were both out drinking that night resulting in him making a “booty call”. Person A’s evidence is plausible and clear in that she could indicate on photographs of the public house where the incident took place, at the side wall of a single storey extension. If Person A was making up her account, she would be more likely to say it happened at the back of the car park, rather than a busy thoroughfare at the side of the pub. In that location it would appear to an onlooker that they were an amorous couple and this is consistent with the evidence of Person A, that she froze and then made a complaint to LC soon after. LC’s evidence as to the demeanour of Person A and what she said supports her account. There is also a medical record in 2010 that Person A did report suffering an assault and she spoke to a counsellor in 2018 about an assault.

84. Why, Mr Corrie asked, with no motive, would Person A put herself through this experience if her allegation was not true?

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant

85. Mr Lambis, on behalf of the Registrant, submitted that this case concerns the credibility of Person A, who made a complaint many years after the alleged event in May 2007. The Panel should consider the Registrant’s character and background and that he cooperated fully with the police, and did so initially without the benefit of legal advice, because he had nothing to hide. Year after year, over the last six years, he has fully participated in the criminal process, self-referred to the regulator and co-operated with the HCPC investigation. He has given a consistent account throughout that this is not him, it is not the way he was brought up and it did not happen. Mr Lambis urged the Panel to conduct a detailed and forensic examination of all the evidence and submitted that this would clearly show that the HCPC had not proved the factual allegation. He urged the Panel to avoid the temptation to say why should Person A make up the allegation, what does she have to gain or “there is no smoke without fire”. This would be an attack on the presumption of innocence and would shift the burden of proof on to the Registrant. It is unfair for him to have to prove a negative or rebut any prejudice arising from the fact of the complaint.

86. Mr Lambis reminded the Panel that the burden of proof is on the HCPC and there is no corroborating evidence to back up Person A. All the evidence goes the other way and detracts from her credibility, so making the HCPC’s case untenable. There are four pieces of evidence stating that Person A did not make a complaint to a school counsellor, the Head of Sixth Form, the Deputy Head or to the police in 2008. Mr Lambis emphasised the staggering importance of these pieces of evidence: either Person A has been untruthful, or three different people and an organisation forgot or lied about a young woman making a serious report to them. Mr Lambis submitted that it was statistically improbable that they all forgot, conspired together or lost records. Mr Lambis said that if it were true, it would be the most significant and catastrophic failure of a duty of care. He said this was just not credible and it is unlikely that Person A made those complaints, therefore she is being untruthful.

87. Furthermore, Person A informed the HCPC that she was contacted by the police in response to the police report in 2008. This was not mentioned when she gave evidence at the criminal trial. She also now states for the first time that her father was with her when the matter was discussed with the school.

88. Mr Lambis submitted that all these matters taint the entirety of Person A’s evidence.

89. Person A had the benefit of rehearsing her evidence previously in the Crown Court before giving evidence at this hearing. The Registrant is not able to “rehearse” his evidence in the same way as he is denying any incident took place. The Panel should take into account the cases of Dutta and Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin) when considering this case, and assessing the evidence of Person A. Those cases made clear that the vehemence with which evidence is given is not a reliable marker of credibility. Mr Lambis said that the way Person A’s and LC’s evidence stands up against the documentary evidence is likely to be a more reliable indicator of where the truth lies and that documents or contemporaneous evidence should be taken above demeanour.

90. Mr Lambis pointed out that Person A had disposed of numerous pieces of evidence which would have confirmed or corroborated her account (If it were true) or would have been exculpatory. As a consequence, there were no texts or DNA evidence from the clothing and footwear. Mr Lambis said these actions speak for themselves.

91. Mr Lambis reminded the panel that Person A had given evidence in these proceedings that had not been heard before. In the Crown Court she talked about resorting to substance misuse as a coping mechanism and explained that by this she meant alcohol misuse. However, in these proceedings she gave evidence that it was in fact marijuana she had misused. Mr Lambis said Person A’s reaction to this questioning – “how is this relevant?” – speaks for itself and must diminish her believability. Her evidence on this point was inconsistent. Mr Lambis highlighted that no other witnesses have given evidence of what happened outside the pub and Person A had shown bruising to her grandmother but on her own account had lied to her about the cause of the bruising.

92. Mr Lambis described LC as a “surreal” witness lying on a sofa and yawning following his arrest at the weekend. LC told the HCPC to “fuck off”. LC and Person A were not independent witnesses. They had recently talked about the case and LC’s evidence relies on the truth of Person A’s account. Mr Lambis highlighted the contradictions between LC’s and Person A’s evidence: LC said she knocked on the pub door and he let her in. She says she entered the pub and first went to the toilet before speaking to LC. LC said the Registrant was in the pub drinking. Person A said he was not. Mr Lambis said these contradictions go to the nature, calibre and reliability of the HCPC’s evidence.

93. Mr Lambis also submitted the Registrant was not present at the pub that night and had not requested a meeting with Person A. It is not credible that an 18-year-old who had just split up with his ex-girlfriend would say to her “I’ll rape you”. The Registrant used condoms when having sex and would not have had sex with Person A standing up or without a condom. She did not have her legs apart and the mechanism of the alleged rape as she described it is not credible. Person A also states she had her feet on the ground, which is important evidence that it did not happen, as is her timing, which suggests Person A was with the Registrant for one hour outside the pub with no one else having seen them there.

94. Mr Lambis submitted that the Registrant chose to give evidence and the Panel should make allowances for the fact that he is under pressure as the accused person. Nevertheless, the Registrant’s evidence was consistent, unwavering and unequivocal as it has been from the moment he heard the knock on the door. Mr Lambis reminded the Panel that the Registrant is a man of good character with impressive references and testimonials from witnesses who have no agenda other than to assist the Panel with evidence of his good character and his role within the community as an ambassador for his profession.

95. Mr Lambis asked the Panel to conclude that the HCPC had failed to prove its case.

Legal Assessor’s Advice at Facts Stage
96. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to consider the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Drafting Fitness to Practice Decisions. When the Panel is considering whether an alleged fact is proved, the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved. The burden of proof is on the HCPC in respect of the factual particulars.

97. The Panel should set out the undisputed facts, the facts in dispute and the findings of fact which it made and the reasons why it made those findings. Where the credibility or reliability of witnesses is an issue or there is contradictory evidence, the Panel should set out any factors that it considered in giving appropriate weight to witnesses’ evidence, or which led to the evidence of one witness being preferred over another. In determining sexual motivation, the Panel must decide whether the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

98. The courts have expressed concern over reliance on the demeanour of witnesses in the assessment of credibility. In the case of Dutta v GMC, (2020) the doctor relied on unchallenged and contemporaneous documentary material, but the panel preferred the patient’s account which they said was “emphatic and assured”. The court found this approach was wrong for three reasons: First the tribunal approached the resolution of the central factual dispute by starting with an assessment of the credibility of a witness’s uncorroborated evidence about events ten years earlier, only then going on to consider the significance of unchallenged contemporary documents. Secondly, the tribunal’s assessment of the witness’s credibility was based largely if not exclusively, on her demeanour when giving evidence. Thirdly, the way the tribunal tested the witness evidence against the documents involved a mistaken approach to the burden and standard of proof.

99. In the case of Khan and GMC (2021), the panel started its determination with a general assessment of the complainant’s credibility, saying it had made an assessment of her demeanour and found she had given a genuine, sincere and credible account. The panel’s approach was wrong in that they started by asking themselves whether they believed her account, rather than considering the totality of the evidence. It was wrong to make a global assessment of credibility based on demeanour.

100. In relation to the absence of and/or displays of distress, experience has shown that people react to situations and cope with them in different ways. Sometimes when people speak about complaints such as this complaint, they will show obvious signs of emotion and distress, but it is also the case that other people in the same situation will show no emotion at all. The presence or absence of emotion or distress when giving evidence, or reporting to someone else, is not always a reliable indication of whether a person is telling the truth or not. It is for the Panel to decide whether any absence or demonstration of distress helps or not and where there has been distress it is for the Panel to decide if that distress was genuine or not.

101. The Registrant is a man of good character with no previous convictions or regulatory concerns. His good character is not a defence to the charge, but it is relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the Allegation in two ways. First, the Registrant gave evidence, and his good character is a positive feature which the Panel should take into account when considering whether to accept what he said in evidence. Secondly, the fact he has not offended in the past may make it less likely that he acted as is now alleged. However, the weight to be given to his good character and the extent to which it assists in this particular case is for the Panel to decide. In making that assessment the Panel may take into account everything which they heard about him.

102. With regard to previous complaints and previous consistent and inconsistent statements, the Panel can take into account the previous complaints when deciding whether the factual Allegation is true. However, previous complaints are not independent evidence of what happened between Person A and the Registrant. It is only evidence of what Person A told people about what she said happened between her and the Registrant. The reason the Panel heard about what Person A said to another person is so that the Panel can consider whether she has been consistent in what she has alleged and whether she has told the truth or not. The Panel should consider any similarities or differences between what Person A said to others or during her interview and what she said in evidence to the Panel. It is for the Panel to decide whether the evidence of Person A’s previous complaints helps it to decide whether she has been consistent and whether her evidence is true; but this is not extra or independent evidence of what did or did not happen between her and the Registrant on the night in question. The mere fact a person gives a consistent account does not mean that the account must be true, any more than that it must mean that the event did not happen if they give inconsistent accounts. To decide whether Person A’s account is true or not the Panel must look at all the evidence.

103. With regard to general issues concerning rape and delay, experience shows that there is no such thing as a typical rape, a typical rapist or a typical person that is raped. Rape can take place in almost any circumstances, between all different kinds of people, and people who are raped react in a variety of different ways. The Panel must put aside any assumptions it may have about rape and make its judgements only on the evidence from the witnesses and documents. When considering why the allegation was not made earlier the Panel must avoid making assumptions that because it was delayed it must be untrue. It must look at all the circumstances, including the reasons that Person A gave for not having complained at the time she says the incident occurred. Different people react to particular situations in different ways. Some will tell someone about it straight away, whilst others may not be able to do so, whether out of shame, shock, confusion or fear of getting into trouble or not being believed. The Panel should consider whether these factors would affect Person A’s ability to complain at the time. The fact that a complaint was not made at the time, does not necessarily mean that it must be untrue, any more than the fact that a complaint is made immediately, means that it must be true. Finally, the Panel should make allowance for the difficulty for the Registrant in giving evidence as he has the pressure of being the person who is the subject of the Allegation.

Decision on Facts

104. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It reminded itself that the burden of proof is on the HCPC in respect of the factual particulars and that the Registrant need prove nothing at all. It also reminded itself that when considering whether an alleged fact is proved, the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved. The Panel took into account the cases of Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin), Dutta and Khan when considering this case, and assessing the evidence of Person A. It sought to look at objective facts and contemporaneous documents and to set any pre-conceptions aside.

105. The Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant was a person of good character with an exemplary work record as a paramedic and exceptionally positive testimonials from people who had known him for many years both in his professional and personal life. It bore in mind that for many years now the Registrant had been subjected to both the criminal and regulatory investigations and that he had co-operated with them fully and been consistent in his position that the alleged rape had not taken place. The Panel bore in mind that, as the accused person in the case, he will have been under considerable pressure while giving evidence and that his evidence was inevitably limited by the fact that he denied the events alleged ever took place. The Panel found that the Registrant was clear and consistent in his evidence.

106. However, having taken account of all the evidence presented to it, including oral, video-taped and written evidence, and having taken the submissions and legal advice into account, the Panel preferred the evidence of Person A.

107. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1 proved. Given the circumstances described by Person A, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated and, accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2 proved.

108. The reasons are set out below.

The alleged incident and recent complaint

109. The Panel first considered the video-taped (ABE) evidence in which Person A gave her account of what happened to the police. Her description of the incident was coherent and told in a straightforward way. She described standing face to face with the Registrant and said “I can’t remember if I was leaning up against the wall if we’d stumbled back to the wall. Which was the side .. of the pub”. She said that she told LC she had been attacked but did not go into too much detail and that he said she looked like shit. She went on to say that she did not feel comfortable giving too much detail to LC but that he would have gathered from looking at her that it was a sexual attack.

110. The Panel found Person A’s HCPC witness statement dated 7 July 2021 to be, in all material respects, consistent with her ABE evidence. In particular, the Panel noted that she says in that statement that she ended up upright against the wall, and that LC told her she looked like shit and that she did not divulge many details to LC “but I think he understood”.

111. The Panel then considered Person A’s oral evidence which was also coherent and straightforward. It was satisfied her account of the incident was consistent in all material respects with the ABE and with her witness statement. She described the incident taking place “against the wall standing up” and afterwards LC telling her she looked like shit. She said “I think LC understood what occurred”. When asked by Mr Lambis if she had used the word “rape”, Person A said she had said “assaulted – I didn’t explicitly say rape” and “not who it was”.

112. LC was not a man of previous good character. The Panel bore this very much in mind when considering his evidence. LC provided two written statements. The first was dated 22 January 2019 and the second 22 October 2021. The 2019 statement was relatively brief. It was taken by the police when LC was in prison. LC described this visit as having been sprung on him in prison. In this 2019 statement he remarks that the events in question are a long time ago and that he will do his best to recall them. He remembered Person A coming into the pub in a state but was uncertain as to a number of things – whether the pub was open, where they spoke, what exactly was said and who the other person was. LC said he did recall Person A telling him that she had been “raped or tried to be raped” and recalled “for certainty” that he walked Person A home “due to her being so upset”.

113. LC’s 2021 statement goes into considerably greater detail than his 2019 one, as did his oral evidence to the Panel. The matters about which he was previously uncertain are now commented upon in the 2021 statement - the pub was locked, they talked upstairs, she said she had been raped and it was the Registrant who had done it. In this statement, LC also describes Person A as being dishevelled and distressed and says he walked Person A home.

114. The Panel treated LC’s 2021 statement and his oral evidence with the utmost caution. This was because it was clear that he had filled in the gaps in his memory by talking with others and by subsequently making assumptions on the basis of those discussions and/or what he believed he then remembered. The Panel therefore concluded that it could not safely rely on any of the additional information provided by LC over and above what was in his 2019 statement.

115. The Panel did, however, consider that the contents of LC’s 2019 statement could safely be relied upon. This was because LC was in prison at the time the statement was given and, as he said, he was not expecting to be asked to recall the events. There was nothing in the statement which suggested he had put his head together with Person A to come up with a common version of events or that he had had time to think about them and had over-reached himself in trying to recall them. The Panel could detect no sense of a man doing his best to tell the story that would please a friend.

116. On the contrary, there was little detail in LC’s 2019 statement and he was clear in it that it was a struggle to remember events that took place so long ago. However, as set out above, he was clear on certain standout issues, namely that something had happened – Person A had reported to him being “raped or tried to be raped”, Person A had been in a state and that he had walked her home. These were consistent with Person A’s ABE and HCPC witness statement of which LC had no knowledge in 2019. The Panel noted that these matters echoed what Person A said had passed between them, notably that he said she looked ‘like shit’, that she had been reluctant to give him details and that LC had walked her home.

Extracts of patient notes from 2010 and 2018 and extract from psychologist AT’s 2017 records

117. The Panel was satisfied that these records show that Person A disclosed a sexual assault because she was experiencing mental distress and seeking medical and psychological support for it and not for any other purpose. The Panel was also satisfied that the record of the 2018 consultation came about because of the triggering event that prompted her to report the rape formally to the police. The Panel did consider whether these reports might have been self-serving but found no evidence that this was the case. These records are consistent with Person A’s evidence that she was sexually assaulted as she has said and that over the years it troubled her so that she needed medical and psychological help for her distress.

118. The Panel looked at Person A’s account together with LC’s evidence of recent complaint, and the supporting evidence, set out above, of the professionals’ records of consultations. The Panel considered that, on the face of this evidence, Person A’s account appeared to have been a truthful one. Indeed, the Panel found it to be persuasive and compelling. However, before reaching a conclusion on the facts, the Panel went on to critically examine all material aspects of the remainder of the evidence, including any that might undermine Person A’s account and any that tended to support it.

Timings
119. The Panel noted that there were inconsistencies across Person A’s evidence as to timings and between her evidence and LC’s evidence as to timings on the evening of the Allegation. It did not consider that these inconsistencies were so major as to be material. The Panel would not have expected the timings to have been accurately recalled after so many years and in such traumatic circumstances. The Panel did not consider that the timings went to any material facts about the rape. Person A accepted that they might have been different from what she had said. In the Panel’s judgement, Person A's inconsistency in recalling them did not undermine her credibility.

Disclosures to family members
120. The Panel considered Person A’s evidence about the bruising around her vagina and thighs. She confirmed that this was the only occasion on which she had had bruising and that she had never had bruising after consensual sex with the Registrant. The Panel accepted that there had been bruising and found that this was consistent with the Registrant having forced his penis into her vagina without separating her legs.

121. The Panel was satisfied that Person A had reported the bruising to her grandmother as she said. It noted that she had been raised by her grandmother and was close to her and therefore that her grandmother would have been an obvious person to seek support from. Nevertheless, on Person A's own account, she had not told her grandmother the truth but rather a somewhat far-fetched story about falling over while inserting a tampon. The Panel concluded that this lie was the clumsy attempt of an embarrassed, traumatised and frightened seventeen year old girl to report being raped and get an adult “to take the reins” as she said in her evidence.

122. Person A also took a roundabout route to telling her parents. In her ABE, she says her father approached her one morning and said that her Nan had said that Person A needed to have a word with him. Person A recalled small details surrounding that conversation including him coming downstairs in his blue dressing gown, sitting opposite her, asking her what had happened and her being unable to look him in the eye. When asked by the police officer how much detail she had gone into, Person A answered that she said she had been sexually assaulted, that it had been non-consensual and that she was still very upset about it. Similarly, Person A did not go directly to tell her mother about what happened but waited to be approached by her mother after she in her turn had been informed by her father. Again, the Panel was satisfied that these accounts were true and illustrated the difficulty Person A had in making disclosures about the rape.

Disclosures to the school
123. The Panel next considered the evidence about the disclosures to staff at the school and, in particular, whether Person A had been truthful about having made these disclosures bearing in mind that only one of the professionals could recall Person A and that no safeguarding steps had been taken.

124. The Panel also considered Person A’s evidence, given for the first time in oral evidence at the hearing, that her father had gone with her to talk to the school. The Panel considered this evidence also in the light of the fact that Person A had previously said that she had never spoken of the rape again with her father.

125. The Panel conducted a review of all the evidence relating to these matters.

126. Person A said in her witness statement that she had told the school counsellor about being raped in May or June 2007 and that the counsellor had said she had to inform the school. The statement went on to say that Person A then spoke to the Head of Sixth Form and the Deputy Head and told them what happened. In her evidence-in-chief, Person A said two discussions took place. The first was in May or June with the Counsellor and Head of Sixth Form and the second was around August after she got her exam results with the Head of Sixth Form and the Deputy Head. In her ABE, Person A says “and then when I went back to school there was a counsellor at school and I discussed it with her. She then raised it with the Head of Sixth Form and we had a conversation with her and then the Deputy Head of the School and they were I think more concerned I think it was around the time that I’d got my results from my AS levels and I hadn’t done as well as expected and everybody was kind of wondering why … … . So I didn’t do well … and that’s why I ended up speaking to those people. And then nothing really came of that.”

127. In her evidence-in-chief, Person A said the school was more concerned about how to support her in re-sitting or repeating the year rather than in what had taken place. In cross-examination she said they were more concerned with academia and how they were perceived.

128. It was in her oral evidence that Person A first said that her father accompanied her to talk to the school. The Panel considered the apparent inconsistency between this and her evidence that they had never again spoken about the rape. The Panel accepts that here, Person A is talking about going back to school after the exam results came out, and that the precipitating event for the discussions was not the rape but the disappointing exam results. In those circumstances, the Panel considered that it is quite conceivable that her father would have accompanied her to the school. The Panel further considered that it was reasonable that the father’s attendance had not been explicitly referred to before by Person A because the purpose was to discuss the exam results and not the rape and she may not have considered her father’s presence relevant.

129. The Panel asked itself, if Person A did indeed disclose the rape to the school, why was no safeguarding action taken and why did none of the three professionals remember it?

130. The Panel noted that nowhere in the ABE, Person A’s statement or her oral evidence did Person A specify what words she actually used to tell the counsellor and the Head of Sixth what had happened. It is not known how direct or clear her disclosures were, or why they did not bring about any safeguarding actions on the part of the school. The Panel was mindful that Person A was a reluctant reporter when she talked to LC and that she had only told her family members, even her grandmother to whom she was close, in either a cryptic or roundabout way.

131. The Panel was open to the possibility that what Person A had told the counsellor and Head of Sixth about the rape was not sufficiently clear or direct to prompt them to take action, even if Person A herself did not recognise that. It was also possible that the counsellor and Head of Sixth Form were people in authority who simply failed to take the appropriate action. Ultimately, the Panel could not know why no action was taken and did not consider that it had to establish the reason for this. The Panel was satisfied, however, that Person A had indeed disclosed the rape and that the counsellor asked her why she did not report it to the police and said the school would have to be told. The Panel could identify no reason for Person A to lie about these disclosures. She had been consistent in her account that she had made disclosures and the Panel accepted that this was a truthful account.

132. As for the second disclosure, to the Deputy Head in August, for the same reasons the Panel accepted that Person A was being truthful about this. Again, the Panel could not know why no safeguarding steps were taken at this point, but it noted that the conversation appears to have focused on the disappointing exam results.

133. Turning to the staff members having no recollection of Person A reporting a rape, the Panel noted that the counsellor had no recollection of either Person A or the allegation. The Deputy Head vaguely remembered Person A but said that he had never taught her or directly received an allegation of rape from her. He said he had no memory of a disclosure of rape being made because child protection procedures would have followed. The Head of Sixth Form said that she had no memory of Person A. She did have a student who was raped but that case went to court and she didn’t think her name was Person A.

134. The Panel considered it of note that the Deputy Head said he had not “directly” received an allegation of rape from Person A, thereby leaving open the possibility that he had received one indirectly from her (possibly from another staff member). The Panel also considered it of note that the Head of Sixth Form could not exclude the possibility that Person A was the name of the student who had been raped. It remained satisfied that Person A had made disclosures to the school as she had said.

Report to the Police Bus in 2008

135. The Panel finds that Person A did make a report to a police bus in May 2008. This was the first anniversary of the incident, it was on her mind and this is what prompted Person A to make the report. The Panel is satisfied that the fact there is no record of this report is not significant bearing in mind that the person on the bus only took brief details, owing to the sensitive nature of what Person A was reporting, so that someone could contact her at a later time.

136. As to Person A’s failure to mention the voicemail in her evidence at the Crown Court or in her ABE, the Panel was satisfied with Person A’s explanation that she did not feel she had the opportunity to mention it because of the context of the questioning.

Disposal of Evidence

137. It was never put to Person A that her account of keeping the items safely in case they later became important was made up. What was put to her was that she disposed of them because they would not support her case. The Panel accepts that she did keep the items and that she only disposed of them when her baby’s birth became imminent in the belief she would then be able to move on to a fresh start. The Panel noted that not only was the baby due around the time that she discarded the items but that this was in the month of May when Person A had explained the rape would have been particularly on her mind.

Pregnancy test and visit to a sexual health clinic

138. The Panel accepted that shortly after the rape Person A took a pregnancy test and some time later went to a sexual health clinic. It was satisfied that she had done this because she and the Registrant had always used condoms when having sex during their relationship and no condom had been used during the rape. The Panel found that Person A’s concerns about pregnancy and sexual health tend to support her evidence that she had unprotected sex without her consent.

The Registrant’s evidence and submissions

139. As set out above, the Panel found that the Registrant gave his evidence in a coherent and reasonable way. It was mindful that at the age of 18 he appears to have been a happy person who was active and civic-minded and who had everything going for him. It reminded itself that he was a man of good character.

140. The Panel asked itself why, in those circumstances, he would do such a thing as has been alleged. The Panel concluded that he had been drunk, wanted to have sex and was hopeful of getting it because of his recent relationship with Person A. The Panel concluded that the Registrant went to the pub with that purpose in mind. There was no other likely purpose because, besides the sex, he had found the relationship unfulfilling and he had, after all, ended it. The Panel considered it significant that the Registrant wanted Person A to meet him outside the pub because this would have served the purpose of having sex. The Panel concluded that, in his drunken state, he was not prepared to take no for an answer and he did not.

141. The Panel considered the extremely positive testimonials provided by the Registrant, but concluded that these largely spoke to the man he had become and not the person he had been at the age of 18.

142. Mr Lambis asked the Panel to consider whether it was likely that the Registrant had said something as shocking as “I will rape you” and done something as unlikely as had sex outside in such a public place and without a condom when it was his practice always to use one. The Panel was satisfied that he did say those words and that he had done so in response to Person A’s question “what are you going to do?”. As to the other matters, the Panel found that it was likely he had done these things – because he had been drinking and he wanted sex.

143. As to the mechanics of what Person A alleged had occurred, the Panel accepted that it might have been difficult given their different heights and that Person A’s feet remained on the ground. However, the Panel did not consider it impossible, especially if it happened up against the wall as Person A described in her witness statement and oral evidence and, as recorded in her ABE, she considered was possibly the case. As to what Person A said about the Registrant not opening her legs, this tends to support Person A’s evidence that the force of the Registrant’s actions caused bruising around her vagina and thighs.

144. Mr Lambis asked the Panel to consider the timings provided by Person A and to find that it was not credible that Person A and the Registrant had been outside for over an hour. Person A was not clear how long they had been outside but the Panel did not find this surprising given the passage of time and the traumatic nature of the events. The Panel considered that this was not material because it did not make the Allegation any more or less likely to have occurred.

145. The Panel was not persuaded by Mr Lambis’ argument that it was unlikely her friends would not have come looking for her. Her friends were aware she had gone outside to meet someone she knew and would therefore have no reason to worry that she had disappeared inexplicably or come to harm.

146. The Panel considered all the evidence in the round and, having done so, was satisfied of the truth of Person A’s account, namely that the Registrant had sexual intercourse with her without her consent in May 2007 and that, in doing so, his conduct was sexually motivated.

Reconvened Hearing - 10 June 2024
Application to Adjourn

147. Mr Lambis KC has made an application to adjourn these proceedings. The application predicates a decision which the Panel has not yet made in respect of statutory grounds, impairment and sanction. Mr Lambis postulates that the Panel will inevitably determine that the facts constitute misconduct, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is thereby impaired and that the Panel will decide to impose a Striking Off Order by way of sanction. Mr Lambis submits that the Registrant would not be in a financial position to fund an appeal and therefore needed time to investigate the costs and potential outcome of an appeal.

148. On these assumptions, Mr Lambis submits that the Panel should cause enquires to be made under Rule 8 of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 as to whether the HCPC and/or the PSA would indicate whether, in the event of an appeal, they would be willing to cap any costs which might be claimed against the Registrant. Alternatively, the Registrant’s representatives should be given time to make such enquiries.

149. Mr Lambis further submits that the Registrant’s representatives should have the opportunity to enquire of the PSA whether, in the event that the Panel decided not to impose a Striking Off Order but rather a Suspension Order, the PSA would appeal such a decision or whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, it would not do so.

150. Mr Corrie on behalf of the HCPC opposed the application. He referred to Rule 10 which gave the Panel a general discretion to adjourn the proceedings, but submitted that there were no grounds to do so. He pointed out that there is a process for capping costs, which would only arise in the event that there is a decision against which an appeal is made.

151. The Legal Assessor advised that the exercise of Rule 8 would be relevant if the Panel required further information before reaching its decision on the next stage of the proceedings, namely statutory grounds and impairment, but not otherwise. The Panel could adjourn the proceedings under Rule 10 but should only do so if it served some useful purpose in relation to the next stage of the proceedings.

Panel’s Decision
152. The Panel did not consider that Rule 8 was relevant as it had no further enquiries to make before making its decision on statutory grounds or impairment.

153. With regard to enquiries about the potential costs of an appeal, this was not relevant to the decisions which the Panel had to make with regard to statutory grounds and impairment. In the Panel’s judgement, it would be entirely inappropriate to ask the PSA to express a view on a potential sanction, which the Panel had not yet made.

154. In the Panel’s judgement, there was no merit in the proposed grounds for an adjournment and the application was therefore refused.

Decision on Grounds

147. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation amounted to misconduct as alleged in particular 3.

148. The Panel was mindful that this is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgment, there being no standard or burden of proof.

149. The Panel was reminded that Article 22(3) of the Health Professions Order states that an allegation of impairment of fitness to practise by reason of misconduct “is not prevented from applying because the allegation is based on a matter alleged to have occurred …. at a time when the person against whom the allegation is made was not registered”.

150. It follows that the fact that the Allegation of misconduct against the Registrant occurred some eleven years prior to his registration as a Paramedic does not preclude the Panel making a finding of misconduct against him.

151. The Panel was assisted by Mr Corrie’s note on the law in relation to current impairment, which was not disputed by Mr Lambis KC, and was adopted by the Legal Assessor.

152. The Panel considered that the proven facts amounted to sexual misconduct of a very serious nature which could be characterised as “conduct of a morally culpable or otherwise disgraceful kind which may …. occur outwith the course of professional practice itself, but which brings disgrace upon (the doctor) and thereby prejudices the reputation of the profession” (cited from Remedy UK v GMC [2010] EWHC 1245 at paragraph 37).

153. Accordingly, the Panel found that the proven facts constituted misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

154. The Panel carefully considered the submissions by Mr Corrie on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Lambis KC on behalf of the Registrant.

155. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and the legal principles set out in Mr Corrie’s note. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

156. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment of fitness to practise. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Paramedic, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

157. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel had regard, in particular, to the following factors:
• The Registrant’s rape of Person A took place in 2007 when he was only 18 years old and had probably been drinking to excess. The fact that he had been drinking may, to some extent, explain his behaviour, although it does not in any way excuse it;

• The fact that the Registrant sent Person A a text the following day stating “I’m pretty sure that I did something last night, I’m sorry if I hurt you, I can’t remember” was an acknowledgement that he had done wrong and that he had hurt her;

• There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the Registrant’s personal life since the date of the relevant incident;

• The Panel were impressed by all the testimonials attesting to the Registrant’s good character from people who had known him for many years, both within and outside his professional practice, including his peers, a senior professional colleague and those whom he had mentored in a professional capacity;

• The Panel noted that, when the Registrant was being investigated by the police for rape, he had voluntarily suspended himself from his voluntary work with Air Corps and declared the fact of his being investigated to the HCPC on application to its register. He also gave female colleagues the opportunity to elect not to work with him in light of the allegation which he was facing;

• There was no evidence that the Registrant had ever misused his position of trust as a Paramedic to take advantage of a patient or service user. Indeed, all the evidence before the Panel was to the effect that the Registrant is, and has been, an exemplary practitioner.

158. Taking all the above matters into account, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was very unlikely to repeat his misconduct and that the risk to the health and welfare of the public of his unrestricted practice is extremely low.

159. The Panel was mindful of the need to take into account the wider public interest. Whilst the Panel did not consider the Registrant would present a risk to members of the public in his role as a Paramedic, it was necessary to consider the need to uphold proper standards on the part of members of the profession and to consider whether public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

160. The Panel has found as a fact that the Registrant raped Person A. In doing so, he caused her physical and psychological harm. She described the event as overshadowing her life and as a burden which she was “carting around”, for which she had needed medical and psychological interventions from time to time over the years.

161. Whilst the Registrant had every right to deny the allegation, in doing so he failed to acknowledge the harm that he had done to Person A by raping her, or by putting her through the ordeal of these proceedings. He accepted in his evidence that rape was wrong but steadfastly denied his own guilt and failed to face the consequences of his actions. The Panel could find no evidence of remediation and, apart from the text which he sent Person A the following day, no evidence that he had acquired any insight.

162. When taking into account the wider public interest and the need to maintain the standards of the profession, the Panel concluded that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if it were known that a person who had committed rape, albeit many years ago, was permitted to practise as a Paramedic without restriction.

163. Accordingly, the Panel found he Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired in respect of the public interest component of fitness to practise.

Decision on sanction

164. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant.

165. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards, safeguarding the reputation of the profession and maintaining public confidence in the profession and its Regulator. 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.

166. The Panel had regard to the following matters by way of mitigation:
• The Registrant was of previous good character and there was no evidence of any subsequent misconduct;

• He was only 18 years of age at the time of the incident;

• His record of practice as a Paramedic has been exemplary;

• He has made valuable contributions to the community in a voluntary capacity with the Air Corps;

• He took appropriate steps to notify his employer of the police investigation and to give female colleagues the option not to work with him;

• He suspended himself from his voluntary role with Air Corps to avoid the possibility of reputational damage to that organisation;

• He has fully engaged in these proceedings; and

• The risk of repetition is very low.

167. Notwithstanding all the mitigating factors referred to above, the Panel considered that the proven facts constituted sexual misconduct of a very serious nature, which caused significant harm to the victim and would be regarded as deplorable both by fellow practitioners and by members of the public. The fact that it took place many years ago does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the misconduct or its consequences for the victim or the negative effect on the reputation of the Registrant or the profession of which he is a member. There has been no acceptance by the Registrant of what he did or its consequences and there is no evidence of remorse, insight (apart from the text already referred to) or remediation.

168. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, it would not be appropriate for the Panel to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order.

169. A Conditions of Practice Order is not relevant, as the concerns do not relate to the Registrant’s competence as a Paramedic.

170. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order, as advocated by Mr Lambis KC, but was not persuaded that such an Order was appropriate in view of the seriousness of the misconduct and the absence of evidence of insight or remediation.

171. The Sanctions Policy provides the following guidance in relation to Striking Off Orders:

“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
• …………….
• is unwilling to resolve matters

172. The Panel took into account the potentially very serious consequences to the Registrant, both professionally and financially, of making such an Order. In the Panel’s judgement, however, the indicative criteria for a Striking Off Order, referred to above, are present in this case.

173. The Panel concluded that Registrant’s rape of Person A was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the register and that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Scott O’Sullivan from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the appropriate court against the decision of the Panel and the order it has made against you. In this case the appropriate court is the Court of Session.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Application for an Interim Order
Mr Corrie had made an application for an Interim Suspension Order on the grounds that such an Order was necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest to cover the period of a potential appeal. Mr Lambis opposed it on the grounds that it was not necessary.

The Panel did not consider that an Interim Order is necessary for public protection, given its finding that it is very unlikely that there would be any repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct.

The Panel did not consider that an Interim Order was otherwise in the public interest. Notwithstanding the Panel’s decision that a Striking Off Order is the appropriate sanction, if the Registrant were to appeal and such appeal were to be allowed, an Interim Suspension Order would already have had a potentially devastating effect on the Registrant’s professional status and financial circumstances. In the Panel’s judgement, the potential harm to the Registrant of imposing an Interim Suspension Order to cover any appeal period outweighed any public interest considerations.

The application for an Interim Suspension Order was therefore refused. As there were no concerns about the Registrant’s competence as a Paramedic, there were no grounds for imposing an Interim Conditions of Practice Order.

History of Hearings for Scott O'Sullivan

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
10/06/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
11/03/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard