David Mcewen

Preliminary Matters
Amendment
1. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Bellis made an application to amend the Allegation to accurately reflect the evidence. The proposed amendments included a change to correct the date of the conviction. Mr Bellis submitted that the proposed amendments would not prejudice the Registrant and were appropriate.

2. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Nwokedi did not oppose the proposed amendments.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the Panel may decide to amend the Allegation provided that it does not create unfairness for the Registrant.

4. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments did not prejudice the Registrant and that they were appropriate. The Panel therefore agreed to the proposed amendments.

Hearing in Private
5. The Panel, after hearing submissions from the parties and legal advice, decided to hear part of the hearing in private to protect the private life of the Registrant and family members.

Background

6. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic. He commenced employment as a Band 5 Paramedic with the Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) in April 2018.

7. On 24 August 2020, the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC informing the HCPC that he had been arrested for the offence of common assault.

8. The Certificate of Conviction refers to the Registrant’s conviction at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court of assaulting Person A by beating her contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Registrant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a Community Order, up to a maximum of 20 days, with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, and a fine.

9. The incident which led to the Registrant’s conviction occurred on 22 August 2020. During an altercation with Person A the Registrant had grabbed Person A and pulled her down the hallway and out of the front door. In response Person A had begun to punch the Registrant and he had then put her in a headlock.

Registrant’s evidence
10. The Registrant gave oral evidence to the Panel, answered cross examination questions and questions from the Panel. He confirmed the content of two witness statements dated 18 August 2022 and 24 September 2024. The Registrant first registered as a Paramedic in April 2018. He continues to be committed to his profession and to the patients he treats.

11. The Registrant described the period of prolonged emotional stress prior to the incident on 22 August 2020 due to a range of circumstances and that he had allowed his emotions to overwhelm him. His behaviour was out of character for him as he is generally someone who is laid back and a peace maker. He acknowledged that at the time of the events he was avoiding his emotions and allowing them to build up rather than recognising and addressing them.

12. The Registrant told the Panel that he was subject to disciplinary action by the WAS. He was suspended for six months and, following a disciplinary hearing, he returned to his duties and was issued with a two-year Final Written Warning. That warning has now expired, but the Registrant understands that it could be taken into account if there were to be any repetition of aggressive or violent conduct. The Registrant has not been the subject of any complaint or incident either prior to or since his conviction.

13. The Registrant completed a respectful relationship course as part of his rehabilitation activity requirement required by his sentence. He also completed the WAS professional development modules in Violence and Aggression Against Women and Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence. The Registrant has continued his learning in this field and within the last two months completed a further course on the fundamental of domestic violence.

14. In his evidence the Registrant acknowledged that his role as a Paramedic depends on the trust that is placed in him as a member of the profession and that members of the public would worry about his past actions and whether they would be safe in his care. He acknowledged that his conviction undermines the trust and that stated that he has taken steps to rebuild trust by being open and honest with his colleagues and through the remedial action he has undertaken.

15. In his evidence the Registrant was self-critical of the behaviour that led to his conviction. He said that he was appalled at himself and that he was in floods of tears and emotional following his arrest. He felt that he had let himself down.

Decision on Facts
16. The Registrant admitted the conviction and the Panel found the conviction proved by the Registrant’s admission and the memorandum of conviction.

Decision on Grounds
17. The statutory ground of conviction is established by the facts found by the Panel.

Decision on Impairment
18. Mr Bellis submitted that the Registrant had acted in breach of standard 9.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and that his behaviour fell far below that expected of a registered health professional. He invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, particularly on the basis of the public interest.

19. Mr Nwokedi referred to the Registrant’s written and oral evidence and invited the Panel to conclude that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired. He submitted that the risk of repetition has been mitigated and that the Registrant has worked hard to make sure that a similar incident would not be repeated. He submitted that members of the public would be sufficiently reassured by the remedial steps taken by the Registrant, noting that the Registrant has already been punished by the criminal court.

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Her advice included reference to the Practice Notes on conviction and caution allegations and fitness to practise impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded that the case of Grant emphasizes that the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession are key factors, and the Panel should consider whether professional standards and public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.

21. The Panel were provided with positive character references from a selection of the Registrant’s colleagues and managers, who confirmed they were aware of the HCPC allegation. The referees described the Registrant as a skilled and experienced Paramedic and a valued colleague. The references also confirmed that the Registrant has been recommended by his managers for progression to the grade of Senior Paramedic. Taking into account the character references, together with the Registrant’s evidence, and the absence of any evidence of similar incidents, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour which led to his conviction was an isolated incident which was out of character.

22. The Panel was of the view that a single incident of violent behaviour in a domestic context is remedial and that the Registrant demonstrated his commitment to ensuring that there will be no repetition. He has completed the rehabilitation requirements of his sentence and has engaged fully with relevant training provided by WAS. He has also reflected on the underlying causes of his past behaviour and he accepts his personal responsibility. In addition to completing courses, the Registrant told the Panel about his efforts to be more open about his emotions and to engage with his support network. The Registrant also spoke about his understanding of the need, in some contexts, for him to be more assertive, to allow him to express how he is feeling.

23. The Panel were impressed with the remediation work undertaken by the Registrant. It did not identify any further steps the Registrant might take to mitigate the risk of repetition.

24. The Panel considered the insight demonstrated by the Registrant. At a very early stage he made admissions of his behaviour to the police and he subsequently pleaded guilty. He also made admissions in these regulatory proceedings. The Panel’s assessment was that the Registrant demonstrated genuine remorse, that he is chastened, and that he had also reflected and continues to reflect on his past behaviour. In his evidence the Registrant did not seek to minimise the seriousness of his criminal conviction and he was able to explain its relevance to the trust that members of the public might have in himself and the profession. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has demonstrated sufficient insight.

25. Having taken into account the insight demonstrated by the Registrant, his remedial action, and that his conduct was out of character, the Panel concluded that it was unlikely that he would repeat similar conduct.

26. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant does not present a risk to members of the public.

27. The Panel next considered the public interest which includes the need to uphold professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the profession. In its deliberations the Panel considered the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction and it also had regard to Standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. Standard 9.1 requires that paramedics make sure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession.

28. Although the Panel noted that there were some mitigating circumstances relating to Person A’s behaviour, the Registrant’s conviction involved violence, which is a serious matter for a Paramedic. The profession depends on the trust which members of the public place in paramedics, allowing them to enter their homes at times when they may be vulnerable. Domestic violence is serious, and its consequences can include long term harm. In his own evidence the Registrant acknowledged this potential for harm and that that his behaviour fell far short of the standards of a Paramedic.

29. It is a fundamental tenet of the profession that Paramedics should not engage in violent conduct, either within the workplace or outside the workplace. The Registrant’s past behaviour involved a breach of that fundamental tenet. The Panel concluded that there is a need for the Panel to mark the Registrant’s serious departure from professional standards by making a finding of current impairment.

30. The Panel was also of the view that the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction required a finding of impairment to uphold public confidence in the profession. An informed member of the public would be reassured by the Registrant’s genuine expression of remorse and his commitment to ensuring that there is no ongoing risk of repetition but would nevertheless be very concerned that a Paramedic had been convicted of a criminal offence involving violence.

31. The Panel therefore concluded that a finding of current impairment is required in the public interest to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold and maintain professional standards.

Sanction
32. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Bellis did not seek to persuade the Panel to impose any specific sanction. He referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and highlighted paragraphs of the guidance.

33. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Nwokedi invited the Panel to consider making no order or imposing a Caution Order. He highlighted mitigating factors and submitted that it would be contrary to the public interest to deprive the healthcare system of the services of an experienced Paramedic.

34. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She referred to the Sanctions Policy and to the principles to apply when considering which sanction, if any, the Panel should impose. She reminded the Panel of the requirement for the outcome to be proportionate, striking a balance between the Registrant’s interests and the public interest concerns identified by the Panel in its decision on current impairment.

35. The Panel identified the following aggravating factor:
• The Registrant’s conviction involved domestic violence

36. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
• The Registrant’s genuine remorse and the insight he demonstrated;
• The pro-active remedial steps taken by the Registrant including reflection, education and training, honesty and openness with employer and colleagues, maintaining a support network;
• Glowing references from managers and colleagues who were aware of the HCPC proceedings.

37. As the Panel previously explained in its decision on current impairment the Panel was impressed with the remediation work undertaken by the Registrant and the insight he demonstrated.

38. The Panel first considered the option of taking no action. In its decision on current impairment the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conviction for domestic violence involved a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession and engaged the public interest. Although the Registrant’s conviction is now some years ago, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct did undermine public confidence in the profession and that it should be marked by the imposition of a sanction. The Panel therefore decided that it would be insufficient for the Panel to take no action.

39. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered paragraph 101 of the Sanction Policy and was of the view that the factors set out in that paragraph applied. The Registrant’s conduct was isolated, there is a low risk of repetition, the Registrant has shown good insight, and has undertaken appropriate remediation.

40. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s criminal offence was not so serious that a Caution Order would be inappropriate. The sentence imposed by the court was a Community Order which was completed by the Registrant in 2022.

41. In the Panel’s view a Caution Order would appropriately mark the Registrant’s departure from professional standards and the regulator’s disapproval of his reprehensible behaviour.

42. The Panel considered the more serious sanction of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel did not identify any further steps in rehabilitation that the Registrant should take or any need for regulatory supervision of his practice. The Panel was of the view that the public interest was met by a Caution Order which would act as a deterrent to other Registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel therefore decided that a Conditions of Practice Order would be disproportionate.

43. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction. It permits the Registrant to continue to practise as a Paramedic and provide valuable service for the benefit of the public, but it is also a record available to the public which marks the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction and is sufficient to uphold and maintain public confidence in the profession.

44. The Panel considered the length of the Caution Order. It took into account the mitigating factors as summarised above. It also noted the length of time that has passed since the Registrant’s behaviour in August 2020 and the length of time he has been subject to an HCPC investigation. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that a Caution Order for a period of one year was appropriate and proportionate.

45. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order for one year is the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry of Mr David McEwen with a Caution Order for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
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.

History of Hearings for David Mcewen