David Lord

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not in attendance.

2. The Panel had been provided with the certificate of registration signed by the Registrar dated 12 July 2024. This certificate confirmed the registered email address for the Registrant. The Panel had also been provided with the notice of hearing email dated 12 July 2024 sent to the Registrant at his registered email address. This confirmed the date (4 September 2024) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that it would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an opportunity to attend the hearing and/or make written submissions and of the Panel’s ability to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

3. The Hearings Officer submitted that good service had been effected.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 and the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), namely rule 6. The Legal Assessor advised that good service would be affected by notifying the Registrant, at his registered email address, of the time and date of the hearing and by providing him with 28 days’ notice.

5. The Panel was satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing had been provided to the Registrant, in accordance with the Rules.
Proceeding in Absence

6. Ms O’Connor invited the Panel to proceed in the Registrant's absence. Ms O’Connor referred to the relevant factors to consider as outlined in the case of R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL5, and as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note relating to proceeding in absence.

7. Ms O’Connor drew the Panel’s attention to the email dated 1 September 2024, sent from the Registrant to the Hearings Officer. In part that email states:
‘Regarding the hearing on 4th September 2024, I regrettably will be unable to attend as I am not in a position where I can take unpaid time off work to attend, nor will I be appointing a representative. I am happy for the hearing to proceed in my absence.’

8. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Registrant’s failure to attend the hearing is voluntary and deliberate and that he has not requested an adjournment. Ms O’Connor submitted that whilst some prejudice would be caused to the Registrant by his non-attendance, this was partially mitigated as he had provided written submissions for the Panel to take into account.

9. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Conviction dates back to 2023, and that the fitness to practise case needs concluding in a timely manner. She invited the Panel to find, in all the circumstances, that it was satisfied that it is in the public interest for the hearing to proceed as scheduled, and for the HCPC’s application to be granted.

10. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to rule 11 of the Rules and to the cases of GMC v Adeogba [2016] and EWCA Civ 162, and R v Jones (Anthony). The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated June 2022.

11. The Panel considered all the information before it, together with the submissions made by Ms O’Connor and the email from the Registrant. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing letter had been sent to the Registrant on 12 July 2024 informing him of the hearing.

12. The Panel concluded that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant for the following reasons:

• The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily and deliberately absented himself, as evidenced in his email. The Registrant had not sought an adjournment of the hearing and there was no indication from him that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing this hearing would be unlikely to secure his attendance.

• The Panel considered the factors identified in the case law and found no good or compelling reason to adjourn the case.

• The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence, although noted that he had provided written submissions, which can be taken into account, and partially mitigate any disadvantage. In any event, the Panel considered that the public interest in proceeding with the case should prevail in the circumstances of this case.

Privacy

13. On 1 September 2024, the Registrant emailed the Hearings Officer in relation to his attendance at the hearing. The contents of that email are partially set out above in relation to proceeding in absence. However, the Registrant made specific request in his email for the hearing to proceed in private. His email states:

‘I would like to request that the hearing be held in private due to the nature of the matter and discussions of my health.’

14. Ms O’Connor opposed the application to hear the whole hearing in private. She submitted that only the parts relating to the Registrant’s health should be held in private. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Allegation is one of Conviction not of health and therefore matters are not so inextricably linked as to require the whole hearing to be in private.

15. The Panel heard and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor who referred to Rule 10 and to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private.’

16. The Panel accepted the submissions made by Ms O’Connor. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. The Panel did not find that ‘the nature of the matter’ required the hearing to be held in private. The Panel decided that the Registrant had not established a compelling reason to displace the open justice principle. In particular the Panel noted that the HCPTS Practice Note specifically states that holding a hearing in private ‘is not justified merely to save the Registrant or others from embarrassment or to conceal facts, which on general grounds, it might be desirable to keep secret.’ There was no evidence before the Panel that by holding the hearing in public, the Registrant would suffer disproportionate damage. The Panel therefore did not concede to the application for the entirety of the hearing to be held in private. However, the Panel agreed that any matters relating to the Registrant’s health should be heard in private to protect his private life in that regard.

Amend Allegation

17. Ms O’Connor made an application to amend the Allegation contained in the Notice of Allegation letter sent to the Registrant on 1 February 2024.

The amendments Ms O’Connor sought are set out below. Proposed additions are included in bold type and proposed deletions contain strike-through.

‘As a registered paramedic PA41887:

1. On 28 February 2023 you were convicted at Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court (and sentenced at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on 27 March 2023) Peterborough Magistrate’s Court of possessing, on or before 19 May 2022, extreme pornographic images, namely 9 photos across exhibits CEM1, CEM2 and CEM3 which portrayed, in an explicit and realistic way, a person performing an act of intercourse with a live animal, namely horse, which were grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

2. By reason of your conviction as set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired.’

18. Ms O’Connor submitted that the HCPC had notified the Registrant of the proposed amendments by letter dated 29 May 2024. Ms O’Connor submitted that the proposed amendment is minor in nature and is sought to ensure that the wording of the Allegation accurately reflects the certificate of conviction. She submitted that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the case against the Registrant and does not cause any prejudice to him.

19. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel has an inherent power to amend an Allegation subject to the requirements to ensure a fair hearing.

20. The Panel kept in mind the overarching objectives of HCPC, and the importance of a fair balance being struck between the aims of public interest and fairness to the Registrant.

21. Having regard to fairness to the Registrant the Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendment does not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation. It is minor in nature and more accurately reflects the evidence in the case, namely the court specified on the certificate of conviction.

22. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been notified in a reasonable time period of the proposed amendments and had been given ample opportunity to respond.

23. The Panel therefore accepted the submissions of Ms O’Connor and agreed that the Allegation should be amended. The Allegation (as amended) is set out at the start of this decision.

Background (as set out in the HCPC case summary)

24. On 7 June 2022, the Registrant, Mr David Lord, a registered paramedic, self-referred to the HCPC as he had been suspended by his employer, the East of England Ambulance Service. He stated there was an ongoing police investigation into the viewing of extreme pornography. He noted he had not been charged.

25. On 12 January 2023, the Registrant was sent a notice of criminal charge for the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images, as described in the wording of the HCPC allegation, requiring him to attend Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court on 31 January 2023.

26. The police crime report notes that extreme pornographic images were found on 3 devices belonging to the Registrant. Those devices were examined, with the Registrant’s consent, in order to rule the Registrant out of a separate police investigation involving another individual. It notes that the Registrant attended the police station for a voluntary interview on 20 May 2022, and answered no comment to all questions, which was his legal right to do.

27. The crime report also notes that the extreme images located during examination of one of his devices were found within the saved messages section on the Telegram application, having been received from another Telegram user. It notes that the reports for the other two exhibits have been reviewed and they show evidence of his interest in extreme pornography. There was a total of 9 extreme images in possession across the 3 devices.

28. The certified certificate of conviction lists the date of his guilty plea as 28 February 2023 at Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court, with the date of sentence as 27 March 2023 at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court. He was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of 12 months. Therefore, that sentence ended on 26 March 2024.

29. The pre-sentence report, prepared during the criminal court proceedings, and provided by the Registrant, accords with the crime report and provides further information about the other two devices which showed evidence of the Registrant’s interest in extreme pornography.

30. The pre-sentence report notes there is no evidence that the events arose during work times or that they were linked to his employment. It also notes there were no images related to children and there is no evidence to suggest that his interests had impacted directly on his performance at work.

31. In the pre-sentence report, the preparation of which involved the Registrant being interviewed, the Registrant is noted as saying that the images had been sent to him by another. He accepted that he subsequently accessed various images and websites. He reported that initially he viewed cartoon animals involved in sexual acts. He then progressed to viewing images of people involved in sexual activity with real animals, as those were options on the site, as opposed to him specifically searching for such images. He is described as being adamant that he would never wish to be involved in any actual activities as portrayed but it did become a form of escapism for him.

32. The pre-sentence report provides further information about what the Registrant said about his personal and professional life at the time. He stated that he did not feel he had any images on his devices that were illegal which is why he was willing to cooperate with the police and allow them to examine his devices. He did not fully appreciate that images of bestiality involving adults were criminal matters. He said he had not been involved in any further such activity and has no wish to do so. He described being ashamed and embarrassed by his acts and being prosecuted. He is also described by the author of the report as clearly demonstrating remorse.

33. The pre-sentence report also provides detail about the Registrant’s background, including that he was subsequently dismissed from his employment with the Ambulance Service. It notes he would like to be allowed to continue to keep his registration. The author of the report noted that a period of Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days was not necessary, due to there being a low risk of repetition. The court did not impose any such Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

Facts Stage

34. The HCPC relied on the documentary evidence within the bundle which included:

• The Certificate of Conviction

• The Pre-Sentence report

35. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Panel should find the facts of the case proved by reference to the Certificate of Conviction.

36. The Registrant was not present but had provided written submissions for the Panel’s consideration. He had not sought to suggest that he was not the person referred to in the Certificate of Conviction.

37. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Decision on Facts

38. The Panel was provided with a certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction which supported Particular 1 as amended.

39. Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ (dated September 2024) provide that where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.

40. The Panel recognised that the burden of proof, to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, always rested on the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had proved Particular 1 on the balance of probabilities.

Grounds Stage

41. Ms O’Connor submitted that, if the Panel finds the facts proved, namely that the Registrant was convicted of the offence, then it follows that the statutory ground is also established.

42. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Decision on Grounds

43. Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) provides that one of the grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence.

44. The Panel took into account that in this case, the Registrant had been convicted, following a guilty plea, of possessing, on or before 19 May 2022, extreme pornographic images, namely 9 photos across exhibits CEM1, CEM2 and CEM3 which portrayed, in an explicit and realistic way, a person performing an act of intercourse with a live animal, namely horse, which were grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

45. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the statutory ground of conviction was established.

Impairment Stage

46. Ms O’Connor referred the Panel to her skeleton argument and adopted its contents as her oral submissions.

47. In summary, the submissions contained in the skeleton argument are as follows:

• It is submitted that the Registrant has breached standard 9.1 of the HCPC Overarching Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics, namely that he must make sure that his conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession, and that he has also breached standard 2.7, namely that he must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.

• The HCPC acknowledges the information provided by the Registrant during his interview with the author of the pre-sentence report. The Registrant indicated that the stress of his professional life had impacted him and that his conduct became a form of escapism for him. In terms of remediation, it is submitted that there is no evidence about how the Registrant has or would prevent similarly challenging professional situations leading to a recurrence of the conduct.

• It is noted that he moved from the London area to Cambridgeshire where it was hoped he would have a more relaxed lifestyle, and it describes that the arrangement had worked until he was interviewed by the police. However, the nature of practice as a paramedic is clearly stressful, regardless of location, and there is insufficient information about how the Registrant would manage this stress in the future.

• The HCPC acknowledges that the Registrant has shown remorse and some insight into the conduct which led to his criminal conviction but, in the absence of the above information, it submits that this insight is not fully developed. As such, it is submitted that there does remain a risk of repetition, although it acknowledges that the Registrant’s conviction relates to matters occurring on or before 19 May 2022, and there is nothing to suggest there has been any repetition of this behaviour.

• The HCPC submits that, in the absence of the Registrant showing insight into how he would manage future stressful situations without reverting to viewing extreme pornographic images, there remains a risk of repetition and his fitness to practise is impaired in respect of the personal component. Whilst viewing such images does not impact service users, it undermines confidence in the Registrant and the profession.

• The HCPC also submits that the allegation is so serious that finding that the Registrants’ criminal conviction does not amount to impairment would undermine confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

• The Registrant received a suspended sentence for his possession of extreme pornographic images. This has brought the profession into disrepute and constitutes a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, namely, to make sure that his conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession.

48. Ms O’Connor referred the Panel to the two-page written submissions provided by the Registrant. She made further submissions in response to some of the points raised by the Registrant.

49. Ms O’Connor submitted that in his submissions the Registrant states that the crime did not involve, amongst others, harm to any individual. Ms O’Connor referred the Panel to the pre-sentence report, which notes the Registrant as saying that he did not fully appreciate images of bestiality involving adults were criminal matters and that he, like many, believed the images were created by those who consented to be involved in such acts and had not considered that those involved may have been coerced or exploited. Ms O’Connor submitted that there is no evidence before the Panel of the specific images and whether there was any coercion or exploitation. However, despite the discussion as part of the pre-sentence report, the Registrant has not included any consideration of that risk when saying no harm was caused.

50. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Registrant’s submissions state that the matter has not been publicised in the media or any other way that could bring the profession into disrepute. Ms O’Connor submitted that it is not only matters which are the subject of the media which can bring the profession into disrepute, and in any case, it could still attract media attention. She reminded the Panel that the Registrant has received a conviction which occurred in open court and that he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment for that. She submitted that this impacts on the profession.

51. Ms O’Connor submitted that the conviction is not spent and referred to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which in her submission states that the conviction would be spent at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed. The sentence was completed March 2024, so is not spent yet. Ms O’Connor acknowledged that the Registrant could have been confused and used the 12-week sentence as the end of the sentence, in which case it would have been spent. Ms O’Connor acknowledged that the criminal sentence has now been served.

52. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Panel may consider that the Registrant has not provided adequate detail about the link between his personal challenges and the offending behaviour as well as what that continued professional support will look like.

53. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Registrant’s insight is not fully developed and therefore there does remain a risk of repetition, although she acknowledged that the conviction relates to matters occurring on or before May 2022 and no repetition has occurred since then. Ms O’Connor submitted that due to the insufficient information about remediation and the continuing lack of insight, the Registrant is impaired in respect of the personal component. Further, that the conviction is so serious that a finding of impairment on public interest grounds is necessary. She submitted that the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute through his conviction, and he has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely, to make sure that his conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession.

54. The Registrant provided a two-page document setting out his submissions. In summary, he states:

• ‘This was not a deliberate or malicious act, and at no point did I intend to break the law. I realise that whilst the material in question is likely to seem distasteful to most, it is not obviously illegal. Everybody is aware that Child Sexual Abuse Material is clearly illegal, comparatively bestiality material is readily available to come across from regular pornography websites with no warning about its legality, and is legal in many European countries and the United States, and until relatively recently in legal terms the United Kingdom as well. My actions were the result of ignorance of changes to legal statutes. As soon as I became aware of the offence, I cooperated fully with the authorities and took immediate steps to rectify the situation.’

• ‘The offence occurred outside of my professional duties, did not take place during work hours, and had no connection to my role as a paramedic or to the NHS.’

• ‘Following the assessment with probation services who thought my offending may have been as a result of stress and a form of escapism, In the months following I have proactively sought support from my GP to better understand potential underlying reasons for my offending behaviour and to ensure it does not reoccur. I am committed to my ongoing recovery and to taking all necessary steps to maintain my health and well-being. I have also undergone courses in order to understand and avoid unhealthy coping mechanisms and prevent any relapse. This process of reflection has been crucial in helping me gain insight into the personal challenges I have faced, and I am confident that with continued professional support, I will be able to prevent any similar incidents in the future.’

• ‘…I am committed to taking all necessary steps to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Further to this I would also like to reiterate from the Pre-Sentencing Report that there are no safeguarding concerns for patients as the assessor states they do not consider the profession to be a related factor, and in their assessment using multiple tools that there is an extremely low likelihood of reoffending or any future harm to others.’

• ‘I have worked as a paramedic for nearly a decade and have maintained an exemplary professional record throughout my career…’

• ‘I firmly believe that this isolated incident does not impact my ability to practice as a competent, reliable, and compassionate paramedic. The offence was entirely unrelated to my professional duties and has no bearing on my clinical skills, judgement, or commitment to patient safety and care. I have reflected deeply on this experience, and I have taken steps to ensure that I remain fully informed of all relevant legal and regulatory changes moving forward.’

55. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which included reference to the HCPTS Practice Notes:

- Fitness to Practice Impairment – November 2023.

- Conviction and Caution Allegations – September 2024.

56. The Panel also heard advice relating to the cases of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC (2008) EWHC 581 (Admin), and Bolton v Law Society 1993

Decision on Impairment

57. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned.

58. The Panel noted that the Registrant was convicted of a serious sexual offence, which included possession of 9 illegal images across three devices. Whilst the Panel accepted that the Registrant’s conduct has not placed service users at risk of harm, it considered that the conduct had brought the Paramedic profession into disrepute and that the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The images are described in the Certificate of Conviction as ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’. The Panel concluded that given the nature of the conviction, the Registrant’s conduct did breach standard 9.1, in that the conviction and facts behind it, would not justify the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession. Further, the Panel concluded that he has breached standard 2.7 and that he had not used forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, given that these images were shared using a social media platform. The Panel considered that any reasonable observer being aware of these matters and knowing that the Registrant had been convicted of them and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence, would have reduced confidence in the profession.

59. In relation to the personal component, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions are remediable, providing that the Registrant can provide sufficient evidence of insight, reflection and remediation.

60. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s written submissions but concluded that the detail provided was insufficient to evidence that the Registrant has gained full insight or fully remediated. Whilst the Registrant submits that he has sought support from health practitioners to better understand his potential underlying reasons for his offending behaviour, he has not provided any independent evidence of this. He has provided no evidence of his diagnosis. He also states that he has received multiple positive compliments about his Paramedic work, but he has not provided any character references or testimonials to verify his submissions.

61. The Panel recognised that the conduct of the Registrant had not caused direct harm to the public, but it was concerned that the Registrant had failed to acknowledge, in his written submissions, the risks that can arise from people being coerced or exploited into being part of illegal images. Despite reflecting on this during his pre-sentence meeting with probation, he has not explored this further in his written submissions to the Panel, simply stating that no individual was harmed.

62. The Panel took into account that whilst the pre-sentence report considers him a low risk of re-offending, without independent evidence of the support he has been receiving and the impact that has had on how he would act differently in the future, the risk of repetition does remain.

63. In conclusion, the Panel considered that whilst the Registrant has offered some reflections, his insight remains limited. Whilst he might have commenced his remediation, he has failed to provide independent evidence of it, thus not providing assurance to the Panel in this regard. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant is impaired on the personal component.

64. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered very carefully whether given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the conviction in this case, public confidence in the Paramedic profession and its regulatory body would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel has also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.

65. The Panel was satisfied that, in being convicted of a serious sexual offence, the Registrant had not maintained the professional standards and had undermined confidence in the Paramedic profession.

66. The Panel concluded that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel was satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel was also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Paramedic profession if it did not find that the Registrant's fitness to practise is impaired.

Sanction Stage

67. Ms O’Connor referred the Panel to the Sanctions Guidance and reminded it of its duties when considering the appropriate sanction.

68. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Sanction Decision

69. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

70. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

- Previous good character

- Early guilty plea in the criminal case

- Engagement with the HCPC

- No repetition of the offence

71. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

- The conviction is for a serious matter, a sexual offence

- The Registrant has not fully developed his insight into the conviction and the impact on the public and profession. There is a lack of information to support remediation, and he has not offered an apology for his conduct

72. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It took into account that the final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public.

73. Due to the serious nature of the conviction found in this case, the Panel considered that taking no further action or mediation would not be appropriate.

74. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel considered that a Caution Order would not be in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy which states: ‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature.’ The HCPC Sanctions Policy also states that a caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which there is: a low risk of repetition; the registrant has shown good insight, and the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment and kept in mind it had not found the Registrant to have good insight, nor did it find that he had shown evidence of remediation. In the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was too serious for a caution and such a disposal would be contrary to the Sanctions Policy.

75. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. While the Panel has found that the conviction in this case is capable of being remedied, it considered that the Registrant has shown limited insight into his conviction in terms of the impact on the public and the profession. As a result of this it had found that the risk of repetition remained. The Panel has also concluded that it is not possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the serious concerns regarding the Registrant's criminal conduct. The Panel also takes the view that given the nature and gravity of the conviction in this case, it being of a sexual nature, the public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the regulatory process would be undermined if it were to impose a Conditions of Practice Order.

76. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.’

77. The Panel had found at impairment stage that the concerns represent a serious breach of the standards. Whilst the Panel had not found that the Registrant has fully developed insight, it did consider it had sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s submissions do suggest that following the assessment with probation he has proactively sought support from health service providers. The suggestion that the offending could be linked to the Registrant’s health is supported by the pre-sentence report. The Panel considered that if the Registrant has been receiving the support he refers to he is likely to be able to resolve his failings. It was mindful of the Registrant’s submission that, ‘with continued professional support, I will be able to prevent any similar incidents in the future.’

78. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be the appropriate and proportionate order to protect the public interest. In order to satisfy itself of the proportionality, it considered whether it should impose a Striking Off Order.

79. The Panel took into account the Sanctions Policy and noted that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s case did not fall into this category. Whilst the Registrant had been convicted of a serious offence, his conduct has not been repeated since and it did not place service users at risk of harm. Furthermore, he has shown through his discussion with probation, and within his written submissions that he is capable of and willing to resolve matters.

80. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Striking Off Order may have upon the Registrant and concluded that a Suspension Order would be the appropriate and proportionate order. Whilst the order could impact on the Registrant’s personal interests, these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to overarching public protection which includes the public interest.

81. The Panel determined that a 12-month Suspension Order would be the appropriate and proportionate length, given the seriousness of the conviction and the need to uphold public confidence in the regulator and the profession.

82. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel might be assisted by the following:

- The Registrant’s attendance at the hearing.

- Evidence of remediation such as letter from the GP or other services.

- Testimonials or character references. This can include from current or previous employment, whether paid or unpaid.

- Personal reflection on how the Registrant has developed as an individual, and details of what strategies he would employ in the future, should similar stressors in his life occur, to prevent a repetition of the conduct.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed impose a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

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

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. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if appealed, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
Application

1. Ms O’Connor made an application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant to enable her to make an application for an Interim Order.

2. Ms O’Connor submitted that the Registrant had been given notice that the Panel could make an Interim Order which has immediate effect. She submitted it was fair and in the public interest to proceed with the Interim Order application.

3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Practice Note on Interim Orders dated September 2024.

4. The Panel concluded that it was fair and in the interest of the public to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. It took into account that he was given notice (by letter dated 12 July 2024), that an interim order could be made. For the same reasons as set out in relation to the substantive hearing, the Panel agreed to proceed in the Registrant's absence.

5. Ms O’Connor made an application for an Interim Order. She submitted that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary in line with the findings of the Panel in relation to the Allegation. Ms O’Connor submitted that an Interim Order is necessary to cover the appeal period and should be made for 18 months.

6. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider whether an Interim Order is necessary under Article 31, to protect the public or in the public interest or the Registrant’s own interest, because of the nature of the findings made in this case.

Decision

7. The Panel noted that the HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘An interim order is likely to be required in cases where: … the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’

8. The Panel was satisfied that it is appropriate to direct that the Registrant’s registration should be subject to suspension on an interim basis, in the same terms as the substantive order set out above. This order is required for the protection of the public and is in the public interest to protect against the risks that the Panel has identified within its substantive decision. The Panel considered that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to protect the public, for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision. The Panel concluded that the appropriate length of the Interim Suspension Order is 18 months, as an Interim Order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal, in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal within 28 days.

9. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

10. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for David Lord