Mr Colin Thomson

Preliminary Matters
Application to hear part of the hearing in private

1) The Panel heard that matters relating to the Registrant’s health and personal circumstances may be referred to during the course of the hearing. Mr Coniah, on behalf of the Registrant, submitted that it was appropriate that those parts of the hearing be held in private.

2) Mr Kerruish-Jones did not oppose the application, stating that the HCPC was ‘neutral’.

3) The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and it noted Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules whereby matters relating to the private life of the Registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client should be heard in private. Whilst noting the default position that hearings should be held in public, the Panel agreed that those parts of the hearing where reference was to be made to the Registrant’s health or private life should be heard in private.

Background

Particular 1

4) Colleague B met the Registrant sometime in or around 2015 when he acted as a volunteer patient during her Objective Structured Clinical Examination (“OSCE”) when she was a student Paramedic.

5) Following the OSCE she received a message on Facebook from the Registrant to which she did not reply. The following day, she received a second message from the Registrant which was a photograph of him in the shower naked with his genitals visible. Colleague B deleted the messages and image and blocked him on Facebook.

6) Colleague B did not report the incident in 2015 as she wanted to forget about it. She later worked with the Registrant between 2017 and 2021.

7) The incident came to light when Colleague B mentioned it to a colleague who reported it to a manager at North West Ambulance Service (“NWAS”) who then contacted Colleague B to provide a statement as part of an internal investigation.

Particular 2

8) Colleague C first met the Registrant when she was working as a part time call taker for NWAS in 2017. At some point in 2017 she accepted a friend request on Facebook from the Registrant who messaged her about her partner’s MMA fight to which she said he had won and was going out for food. the Registrant then sent Colleague B a picture of his genitals (Allegation 2(a)) with a message saying words to the effect of “that’s a shame you could be sitting on this” (allegation 2(b)).

9) Colleague C responded by telling him to ‘fuck off’ and blocked him, resulting in the image and messages being deleted.

10) Colleague C did not report the matter at the time as she considered management would not be supportive but did mention it to Colleague B and asked her Line Manager not to place her with the Registrant.

11) The incident came to light when Colleague C was contacted by DM as part of an internal investigation into the Registrant.

The investigation

12) MS, employed as Operations Manager for NWAS, investigated the incidents raised in Allegations 1 and 2, following which he held a meeting with the Registrant in July 2022, during which he did not admit or deny any of the concerns, saying he could not recall sending messages of a sexual nature to Colleague B.

13) In August 2022, a second meeting was held with the Registrant in respect of the concerns raised by Colleague C. Again, the Registrant did not admit or deny any of the concerns, saying he could not recall sending illicit messages to Colleague C.

14) In November 2022, a disciplinary hearing took place to which the Registrant was invited. In fact, the Registrant had resigned prior to this hearing and did not attend
Submission of no case to answer.

15) At the conclusion of the HCPC’s case, Mr Coniah made an application of no case to answer in respect of Particulars 1, 2a and 2b.


16) He submitted that if the Panel found that there was no case to answer in respect of those particulars, then Particulars 3, 4 and 5 would fall away.

17) He reminded the Panel of the test in the case of R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, informing the Panel that his submission was being made on the ‘second limb’ of the test as set out below:

(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.
(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence. (a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case. (b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.... There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the judge.

18) Mr Coniah submitted that the evidence the Panel had heard was sufficiently unsatisfactory and unreliable such that it was incapable of leading to a finding of the charges. He reminded the Panel that the HCPC has the burden of proof but that the oral evidence of Colleagues B and C was unreliable.

19) Mr Coniah submitted that whilst Colleagues B and C had given evidence regarding the messages, both witnesses had failed to retrieve them when it would have been simple to check their accounts to see if they could have been. In the absence of that task having been undertaken, he submitted that there was no evidence to show the messages sent, or that Colleagues B and C had blocked the Registrant. In contrast, he submitted that the Registrant’s case was that there was no evidence of him being blocked.

20) Mr Coniah also submitted that the HCPC’s evidence was unsatisfactory because of the passage of time between the incidents in question and the matters being reported. He reminded the Panel that the HCPC were just relying on their oral evidence and that the witnesses had stated that there were a number of facts that they could not remember because of the time that had elapsed. That, he submitted, rendered the HCPC’s evidence unsatisfactory and unreliable.

21) In conclusion, he therefore submitted that there was no case to answer.

22) Mr Kerruish-Jones opposed the application.

23) He submitted that there was a case to answer. He submitted that, in relation to the ‘second limb’ of the Galbraith test, there were two reliable and consistent witnesses who have given accounts. Reliability, he submitted, was a matter to consider at the finding of facts stage. He reminded the Panel that Colleagues B and C had been cross-examined and disagreed with the assertion that the incidents in question didn’t happen.

Decision

24) In considering these submissions, the Panel has considered all the evidence it has received and has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has applied to the regulatory nature of these proceedings, the test as set out in the case of R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 as set out above and has taken into account the HCPTS’s Practice Note on “Submissions of no case to answer” which includes the need to consider the HCPC’s case at its highest.

25) Colleagues B and C both gave unequivocal evidence that the Registrant messaged them as alleged. As such, the Panel concluded that the HCPC has adduced some evidence on which a panel, properly directed, could find the facts proved. as such, it has concluded that the Registrant’s application fails the ‘first limb’ of Galbraith.

26) The Panel the considered whether the evidence of either Colleague B or Colleague C was so tenuous, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence, that the ‘second limb’ of Galbraith was met.

27) The Panel has taken into account that both witnesses recalled the Registrant messaging them as alleged. Their accounts were consistent with their statements given during the course of the internal investigation. Both witnesses alleged that the Registrant sent sexual messages or images. Other than the assertion made on behalf of the Registrant, there was no evidence that their evidence was fabricated or that collusion had taken place.

28) Both witnesses stated that they had deleted the messages/images in question and the Panel was therefore mindful that it had not had sight of the messages. However, the Panel concluded that the absence of production of the messages did not sufficiently undermine their evidence to such an extent that it could conclude that either the evidence of Colleague B or Colleague C was inherently weak, vague or inconsistent. Whether Colleague B’s or Colleague C’s evidence will be sufficient for the HCPC to discharge its burden of proof will be dependent on an assessment of the reliability of their respective evidence which, the Panel concluded, should be considered at the fact finding stage of this hearing.

29) The Panel concluded that if Particulars 1, 2a and 2b were capable of proof, then it was open to a properly directed Panel to find that those matters, relating as they do to sexually motivated conduct, could be found to amount to misconduct and a finding of current impairment could be made.

30) In the circumstances, the Panel found that there was sufficient evidence, upon which, a properly directed Panel could find the facts proved. The Panel therefore found that there was a case to answer in respect of Particulars1, 2a and 2b.

31) The Panel therefore concluded that there was a case to answer in respect of Particulars 1, 2a and 2b. The Panel therefore refused the Registrant’s application.

Decision on Facts

Live evidence heard
32) The Panel heard live evidence from three witnesses, who both gave evidence by video link:
• Colleague B;
• Colleague C; and
• MS, an Operations Manager at NWAS.

33) The Panel has also had sight of a number of documentary exhibits which included, but was not limited to:
• The dignity at work policy and procedure;
• The social media policy; and
• Meeting notes dated 13 July 2022 and 8 August 2022.

34) The Panel also heard oral evidence from the Registrant. It also considered the documentation provided by him which included:
• The Registrant’s undated statement in response to the allegations;
• Screenshots of phone messages;
• A number of character references;

Panel’s Approach

35) The Panel was mindful that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything. When considering each Particular of the allegation, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the HCPC and that allegations are found proved based on the balance of probabilities. This means that particulars will be proved if the Panel is satisfied that what is alleged is more likely than not to have happened.

36) In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the oral evidence received, together with all the documentary evidence as well as the oral submissions made by Mr Kerruish-Jones and Mr Coniah. The Panel also accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, including in relation to the Registrant’s good character and the issue of sexual motivation, which is a matter of record.

Findings of fact on Particular 1

37) The Panel found the facts of Particular 1 proved for the following reasons.

38) Colleague B stated that she first met the Registrant in 2015 when she was carrying out her Objective Structured Clinical Examination (“OSCE”). She stated that later the same day, she received a private message on Facebook Messenger from the Registrant with whom she had not previously been a Facebook friend. She stated that the Registrant congratulated her on passing the OSCE and that he was proud of her. She stated that she didn’t reply to the message.

39) She said that the next day, she received a second private message from the Registrant on Facebook. When she opened it, she saw a photograph of the Registrant, naked in the shower, and that his genitals were visible. The photo only showed half his face, but she stated that she could still recognise the photo as being of the Registrant. She stated that she, again, didn’t respond to the message.

40) She stated that she felt sad, shocked and embarrassed as the photograph was so inappropriate. She stated that she deleted the image and blocked the Registrant on Facebook. She stated that she had tried to recover the messages, but that they were inaccessaible.

41) Colleague B said that she did not report the matter until 2022, some seven years after the event. She stated that she did not report the matter to anyone at NWAS as she simply wanted to forget about it, that she didn’t want to draw attention to herself, and that she just wanted to focus on her career. She said that she did not want to have the stress of making the allegation. She stated that the Registrant otherwise behaved in an appropriate and professional manner whilst at work.

42) Colleague B stated that whilst she had not been impacted by the Registrant’s actions in a particularly traumatic way, she thought it was sad that women had to face this sort of conduct. She said that she was concerned that the Registrant was sending such images when he had access to vulnerable individuals and that such conduct was not professional. She said that she was making to complaint as an obligation to other women and girls.

43) Colleague B stated that a number of colleagues had voiced their concerns about the Registrant’s behaviour to the extent that he was given the nickname ‘Creepy Colin’.

44) When asked by Mr Coniah, she denied that she had collaborated with Colleague C to make a false allegation against the Registrant.

45) Mr Saunders also gave live evidence. He undertook the internal investigation into the Registrant’s conduct.

46) He stated that, as a Paramedic, there is a duty to act with dignity and respect towards others. Within NWAS there was a policy on Dignity at Work, This policy set out that unwelcome sexual advances were unacceptable. There was also a policy on Social Media use which stated at paragraph 5.5.2 that sending offensive, rude or insulting images can amount to harassment. He stated that by sending unsolicited messages and images of a sexual nature to young female colleagues, the Registrant breached both of these policies, and the Registrant should have known that.

47) On 13 July 2022 an investigation meeting with the Registrant took place. When asked about the allegations the Registrant neither admitted nor denied any of the concerns raised. He stated that the Registrant’s blanket response was that he could not recall sending messages of a sexual nature to Colleague B.

48) The Registrant stated that he was shocked to hear of these allegations by colleague B as he had always had a positive professional working relationship with her. He denied having ever sent anything of the nature alleged to colleague B. He exhibited screenshots of messages in which colleague B had asked him to keep in touch after they finished their last day at work before going off on maternity leave as well as messages regarding work related matters. He stated that no concerns were raised with him by colleague B at any point in time before these allegations were raised.

49) He stated that Colleague B and Colleague C had both come forward to make a complaint at the same time, had spoken to each other beforehand, and that they had collaborated to make a false allegation against him. He surmised that this might have been to secure the Registrant’s more senior role that he was carrying out.

50) He stated that, if he had a bad reputation among colleagues, then he would not have secured his promotion but that he had received nothing but positive comments from staff.

51) The Panel was mindful that, apart from Colleague B, (and Colleague C in the case of particular 2), there were no independent corroborating witnesses to the facts alleged. In assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence it had received, the Panel had regard to all the evidence, and the extent to which it was consistent, probable and reliable. Having done so, the Panel concluded that the evidence of Colleague B was preferred to that of the Registrant for the following reasons:
• Colleague A’s live evidence was consistent with her statement given for the purpose of this hearing and the internal investigation;
• Colleague B denied that she had collaborated with Colleague C to make a false complaint. Mr Saunders stated that, having concluded his investigation, he found no evidence of collaboration between Colleagues B and C. He stated that although they now knew each other, they did not know each other at the time of the incidents as they worked in different parts of the health service, and mixed in different social and friendship groups;
• The assertion that Colleagues B and C had collaborated was based on supposition alone rather than being evidence based;
• The Panel saw no basis for concluding that Colleague B had any motive for making a false allegation. Colleague B stated that she was reluctant to pursue a complaint against the Registrant and that she merely wished to focus on pursuing her career and that she did not want to draw attention to herself. She did not embellish her evidence by exaggerating the impact the Registrant’s actions had had on her. Such evidence, the Panel concluded was inconsistent with a witness who had fabricated a false complaint. As such the Panel concluded that she had given an honest account of events and that her evidence was measured, credible and reliable; • Colleague B’s complaint against the Registrant was similar in nature to that made by Colleague C, namely the sending of sexually explicit photos. The Panel did not consider that, absent of a demonstrable motive, that two unrelated colleagues would fabricate a similar serious false allegation, where they had the opportunity to embellish the gravity of the allegation, but did not do so;
• The Panel has taken into consideration the advice from the Legal Assessor in relation to avoiding stereotypes as to how a complainant should respond to sexually inappropriate behaviour. Having done so, it accepted Colleague B’s explanation for not having made her complaint for seven years as wholly credible. The Panel concluded that the period of time that had elapsed in all the circumstances, did not undermine the veracity of Colleague B’s evidence.

52) In all the circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant acted as alleged at sub-particular 1a.

53) In considering whether the Registrant acted in a sexual manner, the Panel had regard to the meaning of ‘sexual’ as defined at S.78 Sexual Offences Act 2003 as:
touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that— (a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or (b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.

54) Given that the image sent showed the Registrant’s genitals, and that it was unsolicited, the Panel concluded that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner as defined by both sections 78(a) and (b) Sexual Offences Act 2003.

55) As regards the alleged breach of professional boundaries, the Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ dated September 2024, Paragraph 1 which states that:
“Registrants are under a professional duty to maintain professional boundaries, and to avoid doing anything that could put the health and safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk. Breaches of professional boundaries may put others at risk of harm, as well as undermining the public’s trust and confidence in registrants and the professions.”

56) Paragraph 4d. states that professional boundaries may be breached where there is: “Sexual conduct towards service users, carers and colleagues. This may include conduct via social media.”

57) Mindful of the date of allegation, particular 1, the Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, 2012, those being the standards in force at that time.

58) Standard 3 states:
“You must keep high standards of personal conduct.
You must keep high standards of personal conduct, as well as professional conduct. You should be aware that poor conduct outside of your professional life may still affect someone’s confidence in you and your profession.”

59) Standard 7 states:
“You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners.
You must take all reasonable steps to make sure that you can communicate properly and effectively with service users. You must communicate appropriately, cooperate, and share your knowledge and expertise with other practitioners, for the benefit of service users.”

60) Standard 13 states:
“You must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.
You must justify the trust that other people place in you by acting with honesty and integrity at all times. You must not get involved in any behaviour or activity which is likely to damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.”

61) The Panel applied the normal and reasonable meaning of the words used in the standards. Applying the standards broadly and fairly, the Panel decided that the sending of the unsolicited image breached the Code of Conduct and was a breach of professional boundaries with Colleague B. In particular it was a breach of Standards 3, 7 and 13.

62) The Panel found that to send a sexual image, unsolicited or not, to a professional colleague is conduct and behaviour which undermines public confidence in the profession. It is conduct that lacks professionalism and integrity, it is disreputable, disrespectful, insulting and offensive conduct directed very specifically at a colleague, given the use of social media. It is conduct that fails to justify the public’s trust and confidence and is conduct that manifestly fails to communicate appropriately with colleagues. It is a breach of the high standards of conduct and behaviour required of a Paramedic and it conduct and behaviour that is a breach of professional boundaries.

63) In the circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner towards Colleague B, and that in doing so he did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague B, as alleged.

64) The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 1 proved.

Findings of fact on Particulars 2a and 2b

65) The Panel found the facts of Particular 2a and 2b proved for the following reasons.

66) Colleague B stated that in September 2017, she had a conversation with the Registrant when she mentioned that her partner was having an MMA fight that evening.

67) She stated that within the same month, she received a friend request from the Registrant on Facebook which she accepted. She stated that the Registrant then messaged her asking how the MMA fight went and she replied to that message. She said that she was then asked what she was doing to which she replied saying that they were going out for food.

68) She stated that the Registrant then sent her a picture of his genitals with the message “that’s a shame you could be sitting on this”. She replied telling the Registrant to “fuck off” and she then blocked him.

69) Colleague C stated that she was unable to retrieve the messages because she had blocked the Registrant and they had been deleted.

70) Colleague C stated that she did not report the matter until 2022 because she thought that NWAS would not care if she had received the messages, but that she had spoken to colleagues, including Colleague B, to say that she was uncomfortable with what the Registrant had done. She stated that Colleague B had said that the same thing had happened to her. However she denied that she had colluded with Colleague B to make a false complaint against the Registrant.

71) She stated that otherwise, the Registrant had been professional while at work.

72) When asked by Mr Coniah, she denied that she had collaborated with Colleague B to make a false allegation against the Registrant. Whilst she confirmed that she had spoken to Colleague B about the Registrant’s conduct, she stated that she rarely saw Colleague B, and that she had only seen her once outside work for coffee.

73) She stated that given what had happened, she asked her Line Manager not to work with the Registrant, but at the time, she gave few details as she did not want to make a formal report into the Registrant’s conduct. She stated that she only finally made a formal complaint when she was compelled to do so in order to comply with her professional obligations.

74) Mr MS stated that on 8 August 2022, a second investigation meeting with the Registrant took place. During that meeting, the Registrant was asked about the allegations raised by Colleague C. Again, the Registrant neither admitted nor denied any of the concerns. He stated that the Registrant’s blanket response was that he could not recall sending messages of a sexual nature to Colleague C.

75) The Registrant, in his written statement said that he denied ever sending any images or messages to colleague C. He said that he had never had any concerns raised to him either at the time of the allegation or at any other point in time from senior colleagues regarding my conduct or professionalism with colleague C. He said that had only had limited interactions with colleague C within the workplace in relation to. workplace operational enquiries as well as when she visited the station during her maternity leave when he asked how she and her baby were. To the best of his knowledge they had always been positive interactions.

76) As in relation to Particular 2, the Registrant stated that Colleague C and Colleague B had both come forward to make a complaint at the same time, had spoken to each other beforehand and that they had collaborated to make a false allegation against him. He surmised that this might have been to secure the Registrant’s role that he was carrying out.

77) As with Particular 1, The Panel was mindful that, apart from Colleague C’s evidence, there were no independent corroborating witnesses to the facts alleged. In assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence it had received, the Panel had regard to all the evidence, and the extent to which it was consistent and probable. Having done so, the Panel concluded that the evidence of Colleague C was to be preferred to that of the Registrant, the reasons as set out at paragraph 51 above being equally applicable to Colleague C who made her complaint five years after the incident in question.

78) The Panel accepted that Colleague C was reluctant to make a formal complaint about the Registrant and that she only did so when compelled to do so. That, the Panel concluded, undermined the Registrant’s position that Colleague C had collaborated with Colleague A to fabricate a false accusation against him.

79) In addition, the Panel having found to the required standard that the facts of Particular 1 took place, the Panel has considered it appropriate to rely on evidence in respect of that allegation to conclude that the Registrant had a propensity to acts as alleged at Particular 2.

80) In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of sub-particulars 2a and 2b proved.

81) The Panel then considered whether the Registrant acted in a sexual manner. Given that the image sent showed the Registrant’s genitals, and that it was unsolicited, and given the unequivocal content of the message referred to at Particular 2b, the Panel concluded that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner as defined by both sections 78(a) and (b) Sexual Offences Act 2003.

82) The Panel considered whether the allegation that this conduct was a breach of professional boundaries. It had regard to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, the 2016 version being that in force at the time, noting standard 2.7 which states:

Social media and networking websites

2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.

83) Standard 9.1 states -
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

84) Reading and applying the standards fairly and reasonably, the Panel concluded that the conduct and behaviour was a breach of professional boundaries. It is conduct, as stated in respect of particular 1, that lacks professionalism and integrity, it is disreputable, disrespectful, insulting and offensive conduct directed very specifically at a colleague. It is conduct that manifestly fails to communicate appropriately or responsibly, and it fails to reach the high standards of conduct and behaviour required of a Paramedic. It is conduct that fails to justify the public’s trust and confidence and is a breach of professional boundaries with Colleague C.

85) In the circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner towards Colleague C as alleged and that conduct and behaviour was a breach of professional boundaries with Colleague C.

86) The Panel therefore found the facts of Particulars 2a and 2b proved.

Particular 3

87) Having found the facts of allegations 1a, 2a and 2b proved, the Panel has gone on to consider whether the Registrant’s actions were sexually motivated.

88) The Panel has borne in mind the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), in which the High Court defined acting with sexual motivation as conduct done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

89) It is mindful that sexual motivation requires a specific intent on the part of a Registrant. It is not the same as carelessness, recklessness, or negligence and that it is important not to equate inappropriate conduct with sexually motivated conduct. It has asked itself whether there could be any other explanation for the alleged conduct in accordance with the principle derived from the case of Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 873 (Admin). It has had regard to the Registrant’s state of mind noting that it is not something than can be proved by direct observation. It can be proved only by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence.

90) The Panel has taken account of the case of Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763; General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin). This case stated that when considering sexual motivation, a Panel should make a deduction from all the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the material in the round. However, the best evidence of a sexual motivation could be the behaviour itself. If there is no plausible, alternative explanation as to why the Registrant engaged in conduct or actions of an overtly sexual nature, then it is entitled to conclude that the motivation was sexual. It was said in that case that such a motivation could be inferred from:
a. The fact that the touching was of the sexual organs b. The absence of a clinical justification c. The absence of any other plausible reason for the touching.

91) Having regard to the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council and Yong [2021] EWHC 52 (Admin), the Panel has borne in mind that where there is clear evidence from a witness that they perceive the Registrant to have a sexual motivation in respect of the allegations of which they are the subject, the Panel should consider that evidence and should not rely on evidence from other witnesses, in relation to other allegations, that they did not perceive the Registrant to have a sexual motivation. It is also mindful that the test for sexual motivation inferred from the acts of an individual towards colleagues, may, but does not necessarily have to include physical touching.

92) The Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ with particular reference to paragraphs 8-14 in relation to sexual motivation. The Practice Note states:
‘Panels should make findings about what happened before determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of the behaviour in question. The findings about what happened will form an important part of the evidence to be examined when determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation.’

93) Having done so, and having concluded that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner in sending the explicit image in question to Colleague B, the Panel concluded that it was a proper and reasonable inference to draw that he did so for sexual gratification and in the hope that Colleague B might enter into a sexual relationship with him. There was no evidence before the Panel on which it could conclude that there was an innocent explanation for his actions.

94) In the circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct as found proved at Particular 1 was sexually motivated on both limbs as referred to in Basson.

95) In relation to Colleague C, the Panel has found that the Registrant acted in a sexual manner in sending the explicit image and message in question to Colleague C. Given the unequivocal sexual content of the message and the sexual content of the image, the Panel concluded that it was a proper and reasonable inference to draw that the Registrant’s actions were motivated by sexual gratification and in the hope that Colleague C might enter into a sexual relationship with him. There was no evidence before the Panel on which it could conclude that there was an innocent explanation for his actions.

96) In the circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct as found proved at Particulars 2a and 2b were sexually motivated on both limbs as referred to in Basson.

97) The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 3 proved in relation to Particulars 1 and 2.

Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment

98) Mr Kerruish-Jones submitted that the facts found proved amount to misconduct and he referred to the relevant case law and the HCPC Standards. He submitted that the facts spoke for themselves and the behaviour was overly sexual. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant never admitted or denied the sending of the messages. Mr Kerruish-Jones further submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. He referred to Sawati v GMC [2022] EWHC 283 (Admin) regarding a rejected defence by a Registrant.

99) Mr Coniah for the Registrant referred to the written submissions and the reflective statement provided by the Registrant. He advised that the Registrant had reflected, developed insight and remediated his practise. Mr Coniah advised that the Registrant had suffered some difficult personal circumstances since the events. He submitted that the Registrant accepted that the facts proved amount to misconduct, but that his fitness to practise was not currently impaired.

100) The Registrant told the Panel that he no longer uses social media platforms so as to protect himself. The Registrant told the Panel that he was currently in full time employment as a Paramedic practitioner and trainer. He said he had also undertaken further qualifications and had almost completed his top up degree course with his dissertation left to complete. In his new role he had been promoted to a Paramedic team leader and currently mentored and supported newly qualified and non-qualified colleagues.

Decision on Misconduct

101) The Panel accepted the advice of the legal advisor who referred it to the guidance on misconduct in Roylance v GMC (no 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 where misconduct was defined as “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances.” In Remedy UK Ltd v GMC [2010] EWHC 1245, it was held that the conduct must be “sufficiently serious that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise”. In Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) it was stated that the adjective “serious” must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners. The panel must be satisfied that the conduct is sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

102) The Legel Assessor also referred the Panel to the guidance on impairment of fitness to practise in the HCPC Practice Note and in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and he stressed the importance of assessing insight and remediation by the Registrant and the wider public interest aspects. A finding on misconduct and on impairment of fitness to practise is a matter for the Panel’s own professional judgement and there is no onus or burden of proof.

103) The Panel considered the ground of misconduct and the findings of fact. The Registrant sent an unsolicited, sexual and sexually motivated message to Colleague B. This was conduct that the Panel has found was insulting, offensive and disrespectful and breached professional boundaries. The Panel found that the conduct and behaviour was a serious departure from what would have been proper and amounted to misconduct.

104) Colleague C said she was still distressed when she thought about the message she received from the Registrant. She also received a sexual written message along with the photograph from the Registrant. The Panel found this conduct was more serious still than that in respect of Colleague B. Both messages were unwanted and unsolicited. Taken separately, and together, the Panel found that the conduct and behaviour proved fell very far short of that would have been proper in the circumstances and that it amounts to misconduct. The HCPC standards breached are already set out above in the Panel’s decision on professional boundaries.

Decision on Impairment

105) The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. It decided whether the concerns are remediable and whether the conduct is likely to be repeated.

106) The Registrant told the Panel that he no longer uses social media. He is currently employed as a Paramedic and he has current, positive references. He has remained committed to his profession and the Panel found that he has demonstrated that he is a good and competent Paramedic. He is currently working with junior colleagues whom he trains and mentors, and he has recently been promoted.

107) The Panel considered the range of testimonials from a number of male and female colleagues all of which are positive. In a reference dated 25 February 2025 the current Head of education at his current employer states:- I am aware of the allegations against Mr Thomson and since working at Echo, we have spent a significant amount of time together allowing time to get to know Mr Thomson, in a personal and professional capacity. During this time, I was able to observe how he worked and the amount of effort and sacrifice Mr Thomson put in to ensuring that the everything he did was completed to the highest standard. Because of this he is a well-respected and valued member of the team, and build exceptional rapport with staff and patients, both clinically and within the Education department. Within these capacities, he has worked in close proximity with all groups of patients, staff, and learners - including both women and children.

108) A female colleague states in a reference dated 19 November 2024 that :- “I have known Colin Thomson in a professional capacity for over three years as he was my instructor and assessor on several courses, and since then our paths have crossed many times, as work colleagues. I have found Colin to be of impeccable character and a consummate professional. I am genuinely shocked at the allegations that Colin is being subjected to. In my opinion and professional capacity ( business owner and ex HR professional CIPD) I have always known Colin to only be kind, courteous, knowledgeable and very respectful in his roles as instructor, paramedic and work colleague. I am aware of the allegations made against Colin and can’t believe this is happening to him. Colin would be one of the people that I would turn to if I needed help or advice both professional and personal. I Hope this updated account will assist colin in continuing to be a very professional and caring paramedic that he has always been.”

109) A senior, female nurse colleague states:-“ I have known Colin for many years in a professional capacity whilst I was a senior nurse at Manchester Royal Infirmary Emergency Department. As per my previous reference I always found Colin to be professional and never had to doubt his behaviour. During the time Colin has been under investigation, he has been open and honest with me in relation to the allegations made towards him.”

110) The Panel took account of the reflective piece from the Registrant and also that these events took place 8 and 10 years ago. The Registrant was a student in 2015 when the first incident took place. The Registrant has shown to the Panel that he has learned and that he has reflected. The Panel was satisfied that he has sufficiently demonstrated that he has matured both personally and professionally, despite some difficult personal circumstances in the intervening years. He has completed relevant and meaningful training, specifically in relation to professional boundaries and sexual misconduct. There is no evidence that the misconduct has been repeated since 2017.

111) The evidence before the Panel demonstrated that the Registrant is a good Paramedic who is well respected and trusted by his colleagues who are aware of the allegations. Notwithstanding his denial of the allegations, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has fully remedied the concerns, and that he has developed mature, good insight into his past misconduct. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is highly unlikely to repeat the misconduct and that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired.

112) The Panel was mindful of the wider public interest and the “…critically important public policy issues…the need to protect the individual and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour which the public expect.”

113) The Panel took account of the Registrant’s current position and professional circumstances. He is clearly trusted by his colleagues and he has developed and deepened his professional skills since these events. There is no evidence of any repetition of the misconduct since the events eight years ago. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of these proceedings is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest.

114) The Panel was of the view that a reasonable and well informed member of the public would not expect, in this case, given the positive development of his paramedic career since these concerns, over a number of years unblemished by further allegations, that it was necessary to make a finding of current impairment in order to maintain public confidence in the profession or to uphold proper professional standards.

115) The Registrant has demonstrated that he is a good Paramedic who is not a risk to the public. In his current role he is mentoring and training junior paramedics and so actively helping to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel found in that role, that the Registrant is meaningfully and positively upholding and declaring proper professional standards, and his colleagues think highly of his professionalism.

116) The Panel was of the view that a finding of current impairment would be punitive and would fly in the face of the evidence presented to the Panel of the Registrant’s current, good quality professional practice which serves to uphold public confidence in the profession. In all these circumstances, the Panel concluded that there is no fair or proper basis on which to make a finding on public interest grounds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is not impaired on either public protection or public interest grounds. That accordingly concludes this determination.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Colin Thomson