Mr Craig Michael Davis

Preliminary Matters

Application for hearing in private

1. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC applied to hear parts of the hearing in private in order to protect Patient 1’s health and private life. He submitted that Patient 1, although anonymised, could potentially be identified through jigsaw identification so requested that Patient 1’s evidence, due to the intrinsic link to her health, be dealt with in private, and any references made during the hearing thereafter to Patient 1’s health be heard in private.

2. Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant did not object to the application.

3. The Panel referred to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) 2003 Rules, which provides that:

"The proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the of the health professional, complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing".

4. The Panel was mindful that during the course of the hearing there may be references to the Registrant’s health and private life. The Panel agreed with the HCPC’s submission that there was the potential for jigsaw identification and therefore the anonymity of Patient 1’s name was insufficient. The Panel therefore determined that, due to the intrinsic link between Patient 1’s health and her evidence the entirety of Patient 1’s evidence should be heard in private. Further the Panel considered any other parts of the hearing, which made reference to Patient 1’s health, should be held in private, to protect the privacy of Patient 1.

Application for Special Measures

5. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC applied for special measures on behalf of Patient 1 on the basis that she was an alleged victim in respect of an allegation of a sexual nature. Mr Slack relied upon the application provided to the Panel dated 23 April 2025.

6. Mr Slack submitted that the proposed special measures were akin to physical screens, but in a remote hearing: i.e. the proposed special measures are that during Patient 1’s evidence, the Registrant will be asked to dial in to the hearing by telephone (as opposed to video), so that he cannot be seen on screen whilst Patient 1 is in the same virtual hearing room, and so that the Registrant cannot see Patient 1.

7. Mr Slack submitted that the measures requested did not prevent the Registrant from hearing the evidence but protects the witness from unnecessarily seeing the Registrant. He noted that Patient 1 has specifically asked that she does not see the Registrant and that he cannot see her whilst giving her evidence. Patient 1 has also said that she does not want to hear the Registrant’s voice.

8. Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant did not object to the application.

9. The Panel heard advice from the Legal Assessor who directed the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on 'Special Measures'.

10. The Panel considered the application and noted that the Registrant did not object to the special measures proposed being adopted. The Panel considered that Patient 1 was an alleged victim in respect of an allegation of a sexual nature. The Panel considered the measures would reduce some of the anxiety that Patient 1 may feel in relation to the matter by ensuring that she is not able to see or be seen by the Registrant. This would allow Patient 1 to provide her best evidence without any unfairness to the Registrant. In all the circumstances the Panel agreed to the HCPC application.

 

Background

11. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic. The HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant dated 4 October 2021, informing the HCPC that he had been suspended from his employment with London Ambulance Service, NHS Trust (‘LAS’), pending an investigation into concerns about his behaviour at work.

12. An investigation was carried out by LAS in respect of allegations relating to the Registrant’s conduct towards a patient, Patient 1.

13. The Registrant first attended to Patient 1, in his capacity as a Paramedic on 30 July 2021. Patient 1 was at the time, a 25 year old female patient, who had [Redacted] health difficulties [Redacted].

14. Following an investigation, LAS made a number of allegations now captured in the Allegation put to the Registrant by the HCPC above. When interviewed by LAS, the Registrant stated that he spoke with Patient 1 about his own relationship to show empathy. The Registrant denied making inappropriate comments and disclosed that he had offered Patient 1 a hug at the end of the assessment; the offer was taken up by her.

15. The Registrant admitted returning to Patient 1’s address on four subsequent occasions admitting that he knocked on the door on 16 August 2021, at around 08:50am and again on 26 August 2021 around 20.40pm. In mitigation, the Registrant stated that Person 1 had invited him to return for a cup of tea so he did not consider it be inappropriate, and he was concerned about her welfare.

16. The Registrant also admitted that he had recorded Patient 1’s phone number in his personal mobile phone, in breach of the Information Governance Policy.

17. Further, the Registrant accepts that he had left a cake for Patient 1 on 16 August 2021 at around 08:50am, on her doorstep.

18. The Registrant denied leaving or sending flowers but admitted to carrying out a ‘drive by’ of Patient 1’s address on 16 August 2021 whilst responding to another emergency call out.

19. On 21 October 2021 the Registrant was arrested on suspicion of stalking Patient 1. A decision to charge the Registrant was taken by the CPS and on 29 March 2022 the Registrant entered a Not Guilty plea. In February 2023 the Registrant was acquitted at hearing, of all charges.

20. The Registrant resigned from his employment on 27 March 2022.

21. The Panel heard live evidence from Patient 1 and IP, Group Manager and Local Investigator at the LAS. Both witnesses gave evidence by video link. The Registrant also gave oral evidence.

22. The Panel also had sight of a number of documents which included, but were not limited to:

• The Witness statement of IP, exhibiting documents in respect of the LAS investigation;

• The Witness statement of Patient 1;

• Disclosure from the London Metropolitan Police;

• A redacted transcript of the Criminal Proceedings;

• A bundle of character references.

23. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant admitted Particulars 1b, 2, 3i, 4 and 6 of the Allegation he denied the remainder of the Allegation and denied that his conduct in relation to those Particulars, or any of them, breached professional boundaries or was sexually motivated as alleged in Particulars 7 and 8.

24. The Panel announced that 1b, 2, 3i, 4 and 6 of the Allegation were proved by admission.

 

Patient 1 

[Redacted]

Witness 2 (IP)

25. The Panel heard evidence from IP, the Group Manager and Local Investigator at the LAS. IP confirmed the content of his witness statement. He confirmed that the data provided does not show Mr Davis in the vicinity of Patient 1’s address on 15 August 2021, but it does on 16 August 2021 and 26 August 2021.

26. IP was asked about the data that was received in respect of the Registrant’s movements on 15 August 2021. IP confirmed the data showed the vehicle being used by Mr Davis in the vicinity of Patient 1’s address on the 16 August 2021 and on the 26 August 2021, not the 15 August 2021.

27. IP was asked about the different policies, including the safeguarding policy and his statement that the Registrant should have made a referral to the safeguarding team. He confirmed there was a dedicated team. He confirmed referrals would depend on the nature of the concern. He confirmed if there was no imminent risk to the patient and matters were managed, advice could still be sought from the safeguarding team.

28. IP also confirmed that there was a clinical lead at each station who is able to have a discussion and can give advice. IP confirmed that the Registrant had an iPad or electronic device in order to access medical records of patients. He confirmed that this was regularly done.

29. IP was asked about hugging and the reason why during his investigation he gauged opinions from other paramedics in respect of the appropriateness of this. It was put to him that it was not a yes or no issue within a particular policy and he agreed to this. IP was asked if he had a lingering concern about a patient what advice he would give to a colleague. He stated his advice in the situation would be to speak to the safeguarding team. He stated in evidence that he could not think of a time or example when a re-visit has taken place. He stated if such an occurrence were to take place it would usually be agreed by the clinical team manager and would not necessarily include the same paramedic.

30. IP was asked by the Panel what the normal practice was for fast response units (‘FRU’) on standby. IP stated when an FRU was available on radio they would go into either a local ambulance station and await deployment or they may be requested to go on tactical area cover if that area has depleted resources. IP stated this gives a bit of flexibility as to where you go on standby, but they would usually be within half a mile of their standby point. He stated there was an expectation that they undertook auditing of paperwork when not responding to a call. In respect of the 26 August 2021 the Registrant’s call sign was supposed to be stationed in the middle of Wandsworth opposite Wandsworth fire station. IP confirmed he would not expect the Registrant to have been in the vicinity of Patient’s 1’s address given the distance.

31. IP was asked how he reached the conclusion that the delay of approximately 4 minutes by the Registrant was an unreasonable delay. IP stated it was unreasonable because there was no justification for it.

 

The Registrant

32. The Registrant confirmed that he had been working as a Paramedic for 10 years. He confirmed on 30 July 2021 he understood the reason for the call to Patient 1 was that she was [Redacted], and he had limited information. He confirmed there was an element of surprise from the patient’s perspective initially because she wasn't expecting an ambulance to arrive.

33. In respect to the layout of Patient 1’s home. He confirmed that there was a sofa and that he was sitting at a right angle. He disputed sitting right next to Patient 1. The Registrant explained the background of Patient 1’s welfare check.

34. He confirmed he used an electronic device or iPad to access the Patient’s medical records during the assessment and he obtained consent for this. He stated he noted several medications that he came across fairly regularly, [Redacted].

35. The Registrant stated he couldn’t remember the order of his assessment, but he recalls trying to figure out what the cause [Redacted] was. He stated he was asking her about her job, her living arrangements and relationships because those things can be a big stressor in people's lives. He recalled Patient 1 stating she was in a relationship that wasn't a particularly good relationship. The Registrant confirmed that if Patient 1 was in a [Redacted] relationship he felt this could be a cause or contributing factor [Redacted].

36. The Registrant confirmed that he mentioned his own relationship, he stated he couldn’t recall the specific details but stated something along the lines of everybody can have extreme ups and downs in relationships and he talked about his own rough patch in his relationship. The Registrant recalled speaking about the patient’s job and coping mechanisms, [Redacted].

37. He stated he recalled discussing good coping mechanisms such as writing lists of wins and achievements and then reviewing the list and feeling positive and happy about it. The Registrant recalled talking about lifestyle and exercise and mood. He stated he recalled discussing a boot camp he is part of. The Registrant recalled mentioning the benefits of being body positive and talking about mindset and body image. He denied comments about her being naked in the mirror or calling her “a special girl”.

38. The Registrant recalled undertaking physical observations towards the end of his assessment of Patient 1 and he stated he knelt to the side of her in order to take these observations. He confirmed the visit was 2 and a half hours long due to the nature of the conversation. He confirmed he said to the patient that he wished there was a way of checking on patients like her but disputed mentioning them getting together. He stated that Patient 1 invited him for a cup of tea on his day off and he confirmed he lived far away but may be able to return when working.

39. The Registrant stated that there was something about Patient 1’s bad relationship that didn’t sit right, that he felt needed to be signposted. He confirmed that he was not interested in getting to know Patient 1 on a more intimate level.

40. The Registrant confirmed that the assessment ended on discussions of the Patient following up with her GP and being provided with an advice sheet. He confirmed there was a hug when he left. He stated he had built a fairly good rapport during the assessment and that Patient 1 had offloaded a lot of information and had been comfortable sharing information. He stated the hug was provided as support and not because he was interested in getting to know Patient 1 better. The Registrant confirmed he gave Patient 1 two hugs in the hallway, following a conversation about having tea.

41. The Registrant confirmed that after the visit he put Patient 1’s number into his mobile phone, he acknowledged this was inappropriate but stated he didn’t use the mobile number and deleted it on 26 August 2021 when he realised the invitation for a cup of tea was no longer open.

42. The Registrant stated he did not leave flowers for Patient 1 and was not in the vicinity of Patient 1’s address on 15 August 2021. He stated he admitted going to the Registrant’s address on 16 August 2021 and leaving her a cake. The Registrant accepted that he delayed responding to a category 2 emergency call by taking a longer route which passed Patient 1’s address. He stated this was due to “red mist” and clouded judgement. By this he stated he meant a documented condition that affects drivers, where they get focused on achieving a goal without having awareness of what they should be doing, and their judgement gets clouded. He stated he realised he should be attending the emergency.

43. The Registrant confirmed he attended the address a second time and delivered a cake. He confirmed he knocked on the door and there was no answer, so he left it on the doorstep. He confirmed he wrote a message on the box of the cake as it was a quote from the discussion they had about coping strategies.

44. The Registrant was asked why he spent time in the vicinity of Patient 1’s address, and he stated he was on standby, playing games on a device and waiting, and he didn't see the need to drive anywhere else. He stated he believed he was in the area of the call sign. He stated he waited in the area later to see if Patient 1 returned from work to take up their offer of a cup of tea. He noted that the cake was still there.

45. The Registrant stated that he was not interested in a relationship with Patient 1. He stated there was no official process for a check-up in the particular circumstances. He stated he did not think there were grounds for a referral to the safeguarding team without consent because there was not an immediate risk. He stated that there was something that was niggling him and he couldn’t put his finger on it, it related to the potential abusive relationship which he suspected.

46. The Registrant confirmed he didn’t speak to the clinical lead as he thought he would be told there was nothing that they could do. He stated having reflected he was suffering from “white knight syndrome”.

47. In respect of the 26 August 2021, he confirmed he went back to the Registrant’s address, believing there was an invitation for a cup of tea. He stated he wanted to gain further information as to the state of the relationship as to whether Patient 1 needed signposting for an abusive relationship. He stated he felt the invitation for a cup of tea meant he could check in on Patient 1.

48. He stated when he saw Patient 1 at the front door through the window which was frosted he explained who he was and stated he wanted to check how Patient 1 was. He stated that Patient 1 said something along the lines of “she was ok, and she was just going to bed”. He stated he said to her “ok, take care” and then started to take a few steps away from the door. He stated he said, in reference to the cake (which he referred to as a muffin) “did you get the blueberry…” and stammered his words. Patient 1 said “oh was that you, that was sweet of you, thank you”. He stated he did not make reference to “gifts” in the plural.

49. The Registrant confirmed he had no further contact after 26 August 2021 and he deleted Patient 1’s number as it appeared that the invitation for the cup of tea was no longer open, so he didn't need to have the number to arrange another.

50. The Registrant acknowledged that it was inappropriate to put the mobile number of Patient 1 in his phone. He stated he did not make any inappropriate comments to Patient 1 on 30 July 2021. He confirmed it was inappropriate to divert via Patient 1’s address on an emergency call and he should not have delayed the ambulance provisions. The Registrant confirmed having reflected he could have handled the situation better. He stated at no stage was he trying to initiate any sort of sexual contact.

51. The Registrant was cross examined. He could not recall what prompted the discussion about his relationship. The Registrant was asked to confirm what exactly he said to Patient 1 about looking in the mirror. He stated that he didn’t remember referencing a mirror, he stated he spoke about the exercise regime that he was undertaking at the time with a boot camp and his personal trainer. His trainer often said it was helpful to keep a photo diary to know what areas of your body you need to work on. He stated this could help with a body positive image. The Registrant was asked why it was appropriate that he comment on body image. He confirmed that he was referring to his own exercise as part
of general advice.

52. The Registrant was asked why Patient 1 would recall him calling her “special girl” if this wasn't correct. The Registrant stated he did not know why this was the case. He denied suggesting that he would spend time with Patient 1 on his day off.

53. The Registrant confirmed that he was an experienced Paramedic and had assessed patients before [Redacted]. He was asked whether any of those assessments were in excess of two hours. He confirmed they were not but stated he was talking about different topics with Patient 1 and assessing for stressors in her life. He agreed that the assessment would have been shorter if he hadn’t talked about his personal matters and his training routine.

54. It was put to the Registrant that before he left he told Patient 1 that he was going to hug her. The Registrant stated he asked if she would like a hug. It was put to the Registrant that the hug was an intimate embrace. He denied this. The Registrant confirmed that there were two hugs between himself and Patient 1. The Registrant confirmed in hindsight it was not appropriate to hug Patient 1.

55. The Registrant was asked what he meant by checking up on patients like you. The Registrant confirmed that he had a niggling feeling from the conversation that he had had with Patient 1. The Registrant confirmed he did not ask Patient 1, in the two-hour assessment, about whether she was at a risk of harm, he stated he didn’t feel she was in immediate danger.

56. It was put to the Registrant that this must have changed as he later turned up on the Registrant’s doorstep, on his account based on the concern for Patient 1. The Registrant stated he felt that he needed to find out more information as to whether or not the patient needed to be signposted in respect of her relationship. The Registrant was asked why he felt the need to question this over 2 weeks later and not at the time. The registrant stated it was not a question that occurred to him at the time but over the two weeks it had been playing on his mind. The Registrant confirmed that he recorded Patient 1's phone number when he returned to the station after leaving the scene on the 30 July 2021. He was asked why he didn't speak to a clinical lead for advice and stated that he didn't think he had grounds to make a referral he stated it was during the pandemic, and he may have felt a lack of perceived support.

57. The Registrant was asked why it took him two weeks to follow up on Patient 1 if he had concerns, he confirmed that he was on annual leave and his first day back was the 14 August 2021, and he was working on an ambulance with a team on that date. He explained that when working in a FRU he was on standby for a significant period of time, and this was not the case when he was working on an ambulance.

58. The Registrant was asked why if he still had Patient 1’s phone number in his phone he didn't call her or try to contact her through another form of electronic communication. He stated that he recorded the number of Patient 1 so he could take her up on her offer of a cup of tea.

59. The Registrant was asked why his concern for Patient 1 led him to gift her a cake. It was put to the Registrant that if he was concerned about Patient 1 this should have been the purpose for the visit and not to take Patient 1 up on her offer of a cup of tea. The Registrant confirmed that it was all part of the same thought process.

60. The Registrant was asked why having realised he shouldn’t have taken a route via Patient 1 address, when he was required to attend another patient, why he then went back to Patient 1’s address again. The Registrant stated he still had the cake with him and his intention was to make contact with Patient 1 as a follow up check-up.

61. The Registrant confirmed that having attended the property and left the cake for Patient 1, he later returned to her address see if the cake had been taken in by the patient. It was put to the Registrant that driving by the Patient 1's home and leaving her a cupcake would have not satisfied his alleged concerns about the patient. He was asked why he didn't follow up with Patient 1 until the 26 August 2021 if he was concerned. The Registrant confirmed that he wasn't working on the intervening dates.

62. It was put to the Registrant that he had left Patient 1 flowers, but he denied this.

63. The Registrant was asked about deleting Patient 1’s number on the 26 August 2021 and his explanation that this was due to him thinking that the invitation for tea was no longer open. The Registrant was asked why he didn't use the patient’s number if he thought the invitation was open. He stated he did not know. It was put to the Registrant that on his own case Patient 1 had thanked him for the sweetness of his actions. He was asked how this was consistent with him immediately deleting Patient 1’s number. He stated he felt the interaction through the door was shorter and the rapport was no longer present.

64. The Registrant was asked whether he found Patient 1 attractive. He stated he didn't really form an opinion of her. The Registrant was asked about the fact that he had never given a cake previously or returned to an address he was asked what was special about Patient 1 the Registrant stated it was the niggling feeling about a potentially [Redacted] and he didn't recall coming across a patient with those kind of concerns before. It was put to the Registrant that his actions were sexually motivated, but he denied this.

65. In re-examination the Registrant was asked about the duration of his parting hug he stated it was 15 to 20 seconds and was the standard hug with arms around the back he said he gave this in a supportive manner he stated he had not previously hugged [Redacted], but he had hugged patients previously including at home births and in order to console relatives on death.

66. The Registrant was asked questions by the Panel. The Registrant was asked whether it was a part of his practise to agree a return visit to a patient and whether or not there had been any other occasions when he had followed up care. He confirmed this has not occurred in this kind of setting before. The Registrant was asked about his motivation for returning to see Patient 1 and the fact that he had a niggling feeling about a potentially [Redacted] and why this concern changed when he thought the invitation for tea was no longer open. He stated he couldn’t recall. He confirmed he didn’t make any further follow up.

67. The Registrant was asked about his evidence in the criminal trial when he stated, under oath he did not have access to Patient 1’s telephone number and the fact that he was now telling the Panel that he did. He confirmed that he didn’t have access to all of the information in the criminal trial and on receipt of the investigation documents he recalled having access to Patient 1’s phone number.

68. The Registrant was informed that that timings were difficult to estimate, and he was asked to count 15 - 20 seconds and confirm whether this was the correct amount of time for the hug. He confirmed that this was the correct amount of time for the hug.

69. The Panel heard submission on behalf of both the HCPC and the Registrant. The Panel took the submissions into account alongside the documentary evidence in the case and the character evidence provided by the Registrant.

70. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the burden of proving the facts lay on the HCPC, to prove the facts in the Allegation on the balance of probabilities. She referred the Panel to Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 and Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 and the court’s guidance on the assessment of evidence. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes in respect of ‘Professional Boundaries’ and ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s State of Mind’. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the cases of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) on the meaning of ‘sexual motivation’ and PSA v HCPC and Wood [2019] EWHC 2819 (Admin) in respect of the consideration of vulnerability.

 

Decision on Facts

Particular 1a. i

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

a. made inappropriate comments in that you:

i. talked about your own relationship;

71. The Panel noted that the Registrant agreed that he had talked about his relationship when attending a call out to Patient 1 on 30 July 2021. The Panel considered the evidence of Patient 1 who confirmed that she knew specific details about the Registrant’s wife, which the Registrant did not dispute.

72. The Panel had regard to the evidence given by the Registrant under oath in the criminal proceedings relating to these matters. In particular the following extracts:

Q. You know that A has described that you were talking about your own relationship, so your own marriage. What do you say about that?

A. I don’t remember specifics but I tried to empathise that not everybody has perfect relationships and that at the time mine was a particularly [Redacted] relationship also.

Q. And are those things that you told her about

A. Yes.

Q. with your relationship? And again, just so that we’re clear, why were you talking about your own relationship?

A. In an empathetic manner.

Q. What do you mean by that? What were you trying to achieve?

A. To – the aim of that was probably to put the patient at ease that not everybody has happy relationships and that I understood what she was talking about, however not had experience of the same issues that she was experiencing….

Q So what you told her about your relationship did involve unloading some information.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree with that?

A. Yeah.

Q. It wasn’t just a passing comment ‘Well, look, I understand. My marriage isn’t perfect either. We all have troubles’. It was more information than that.

A. Yes

Q. Do you agree that more of the conversation was about you than it was about her?

A. No.

Q. Do you agree that you over-shared? You went into unprofessional territory?

A. Possibly.

73. The Panel considered that the evidence was supportive of the fact that the Registrant had shared details of a [Redacted] in his marriage, and he had unloaded information which was more than a passing comment about his own relationship.

74. The Panel considered the comments made by the Registrant to be inappropriate, on the basis that there was no justifiable explanation for him sharing with Patient 1 the details of the difficulties with his marriage to the extent that he did. The Panel considered this in the context of Patient 1’s evidence that she felt the Registrant shared details of his relationship that she didn’t need to know.

75. The Panel place weight on the fact that the Registrant acknowledged in the criminal proceedings that his oversharing “possibly” went into unprofessional territory. In all the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s discussion of his relationship in the context of the interaction with Patient 1 was inappropriate.

76. The Panel therefore found Particular 1a, i proved.

 

Particular 1a. ii

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

a. made inappropriate comments in that you:

ii. referred to Patient 1 as a ‘special girl’ or words to that effect;

77. The Panel considered with care the evidence of Patient 1 in respect of this Allegation. The Panel considered that Patient 1 was credible and consistent in her evidence and made appropriate concessions when she did not recall matters. The Panel considered that Patient 1’s evidence was not embellished and the Panel determined that Patient 1 had no motive to mislead in respect of the evidence that she provided.

78. The Panel considered Patient 1 was very clear in her evidence that the Registrant had referred to her as a “Special Girl” or words to that effect.

79. The Panel noted that this was something which Patient 1 reported in her statement to the police in September 2021 and her evidence throughout the criminal proceedings and the current proceedings was consistent that such words were used.

80. The Panel noted that the Registrant has denied using these words, throughout both the criminal proceedings and in the current proceedings.

81. The Panel therefore went on to consider the alleged use of the words in the context of the interaction between Patient 1 and the Registrant on 30 July 2021 and the actions of the Registrant subsequent to that.

82. The Panel went on to assess whether the Registrant’s evidence was consistent with the admitted facts and incontrovertible evidence. The Panel noted the Registrant’s admissions in evidence in respect of him hugging Patient 1 twice at the end of the call out. Further, the Panel noted that the Registrant did not dispute that he saved Patient 1’s phone number following the call out, waited outside her home address on numerous occasions, gifted her a cake and returned to her address to see her.

83. The Panel considered that on the evidence before it, it was more likely than not that the Registrant did refer to Patient 1 as a “special girl” or words to that effect. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s denial of using these words was inconsistent with the accepted actions of the Registrant following the interaction with Patient 1. The Panel considered all of the Registrant’s actions were suggestive of the fact that the Registrant considered that there was something special about Patient 1 and their interaction.

84. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that it was therefore more likely than not that the words were said by the Registrant.

85. The Panel went on to consider whether the comment was inappropriate. The Panel considered that the words used were inappropriate, and there was no obvious justification for referring to Patient 1 as a “special girl” during this
assessment.

86. The Panel therefore found Particular 1a, ii proved.

 

Particular 1a. iii

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

a. made inappropriate comments in that you:

iii. implied that you and Patient 1 should ‘get together’, or words to that effect;

87. The Panel considered with care the evidence of Patient 1 in respect of this Allegation. The Panel noted its previous conclusions in respect of the credibility of Patient 1’s evidence.

88. The Panel noted its conclusions in respect of the circumstances during and following the interaction between Patient 1 and the Registrant on 30 July 2021.

89. The Panel considered on the basis of the evidence that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did imply that himself and Patient 1 should “get together”.

90. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s denial of using these words was inconsistent with the accepted actions of the Registrant following the interaction with Patient 1. The Panel considered that the Registrant went to great lengths to try and see the Registrant following their interaction on 30 July 2021, including waiting in the vicinity of her address on numerous occasions.

91. In the circumstances the Panel considered that it was therefore more likely than not that the words were said by the Registrant.

92. The Panel went on to consider whether the comment was inappropriate. The Panel considered it was clearly inappropriate for the Registrant to suggest that himself and Patient 1 should get together.

93. The Panel therefore found Particular 1a, iii proved.

 

Particular 1a. iv

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

a. made inappropriate comments in that you:

iv. asked Patient 1 if she took her clothes off and looked at herself naked in the mirror; and/or

94. The Panel had regard to the evidence given by the Registrant under oath in the criminal proceedings relating to these matters. In particular the following extracts:

Q. Now, you know that there is also or part of the allegation of this visit is that you asked her whether she ever essentially looked at herself naked in front of the mirror so ever took her clothes off to look in the mirror. Was anything said of that nature?

A. I don’t recall the conversation. However, when we were talking about exercise and healthy diet, I may have drawn reference from something my personal trainer at the time used to say fairly often that having positive body image was important for mental health and something that he used to post about was keeping photo diaries for your personal record-keeping of progress, so may have asked the question but I don’t recall it, but not phrased in the way that put it.

95. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s evidence under oath in the criminal proceedings was that “he may have asked the question, but he did not recall”. The Panel considered the nature of the question and the likelihood of not recalling such a question. The Panel considered that given the personal nature of the question it was highly unlikely the Registrant would fail to recall asking such a question, in the context of the circumstances and reasons for the interaction between the Registrant and Patient 1 on 30 July 2021.

96. The Panel compared the evidence of the Registrant to Patient 1 who gave a consistent account that the Registrant had asked her if she took her clothes off and looked at herself naked in the mirror and had confirmed that she felt the interaction between herself, and the Registrant was inappropriate.

97. The Panel considered on the basis of the evidence that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did asked Patient 1 if she took her clothes off and looked at herself naked in the mirror.

98. The Panel therefore found Particular 1a, iv proved.

 

Particular 1a. v

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

a. made inappropriate comments in that you:

v. asked Patient 1 if you could see her on your days off;

99. The Panel considered the evidence of Patient 1. The Panel noted that Patient 1 did not confirm at any stage in her oral evidence that the Registrant had asked her if he could see her specifically on his days off. Further, the Panel were not able to locate any evidence in respect of this in the transcript of the criminal proceedings when Patient 1 also gave evidence under oath.

100. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s denial of using these words was consistent with his actions following the interaction with Patient 1. The Panel noted that the Registrant had only sought to see Patient 1 whilst he was on shift at work and there was no evidence before it of him trying to see Patient 1 on his days off.

101. The Panel accepted the evidence of the Registrant that he lived far away from Patient 1 and therefore considered that it was unlikely that he would offer to see Patient 1 on his days off. The Panel considered the multiple occasions when the Registrant sought to see Patient 1 while working.

102. The Panel considered that there was insufficient evidence before it to determine that it was more likely than not that these words were said by the Registrant.

103. The Panel therefore found Particular 1a, v not proved.

 

Particular 1b

On 30 July 2021, whilst attending a call out to Patient 1, you:

b. hugged Patient 1 on one or more occasions.

104. The Panel noted that despite the initial denial of this Allegation to the extent that he only agreed to hugging Patient 1 once, the Registrant in fact accepted in evidence that he hugged Patient 1 twice in quick succession, once in the hallway and once at the threshold of the front door. The Registrant described the hugs and noted that the first hug lasted between 15 - 20 seconds. He was asked to confirm whether this was correct and he agreed 15 - 20 seconds was the correct length of time.

105. Based on the Registrant’s own evidence the Panel found that the Registrant had hugged Patient 1 on one or more occasions.

106. The Panel therefore found Particular 1b, proved.

 

Particular 5

On or around 15 and/or 16 August 2021, you gifted Patient 1 a cake and/or flowers.

107. The Panel noted that the Registrant had accepted that he gifted Patient 1 a cake on 16 August 2021. The Panel took this admission into account.

108. The Panel noted that the Registrant disputed gifting Patient 1 flowers or being in the vicinity of her house on 15 August 2021.

109. The Panel considered the evidence of Patient 1 in respect of the flowers. In her evidence she conceded that she could not be sure that the Registrant left the flowers. She stated that she assumed he had left the flowers because she heard the word “gifts” in the plural. She accepted that the flowers were not in a bunch and were scattered handpicked flowers.

110. The Panel had no evidence before it to suggest that the Registrant was in the vicinity of the Patient’s address on 15 August 2021.

111. The Panel considered that there was insufficient evidence before it to determine that the Registrant gifted Patient 1 flowers or that this gifting occurred on 15 August 2021.

112. However, the Panel considered the admission by the Registrant to gifting the Patient a cake on 16 August 2021. The Panel consider that by virtue of this admission the Allegation was proved in part, namely that on 16 August 2021, the Registrant gifted Patient 1 a cake.

113. The Panel therefore found Particular 5, proved.

 

Particular 7

You breached professional boundaries in respect of your conduct set out in paragraphs 1 – 6 above.

114. The Panel considered the practice note issued by the HCPTS in respect of ‘Professional Boundaries’. In this regard the Panel noted the following factors which may demonstrate that professional boundaries may be breached:

• Sexually motivated behaviour – this may include conduct which is done for the purpose of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship...

• Sharing personal information with service users or their carers (particularly where this puts the needs of the registrant ahead of those of the service user or their carer).

• Seeking and/or using confidential information about service users, their carers or colleagues for purposes other than providing care to them.

115. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions amount to a serious breach of professional boundaries.

116. The Panel determined that the Registrant overshared information about his relationship with Patient 1 and considered that the sharing of such information was inappropriate. The Panel considered that in sharing this information the Registrant was putting the needs of himself ahead of those of Patient 1. The Panel considered that there was no justification for sharing the information that he did with Patient 1, and it was not information which the Patient needed to know. The Panel considered that he shared this information in the knowledge that Patient 1 was having her own relationship difficulties. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s explanation for sharing such information was not consistent with his later actions and the Panel considered that it was more likely than not the Registrant shared the information as he wished to build an inappropriate rapport with Patient 1.

117. The Panel considered its conclusions in respect of the words said to Patient 1 including referring to her as a “special girl”, implying that Patient 1 and the Registrant should “get together” and asking Patient 1 if she took her clothes off and looked at herself naked in the mirror. The Panel considered that all of these comments amount to a breach of professional boundaries. The Panel determined that there was no justification for the comments made by the Registrant, and that such comments demonstrated a serious lapse of the Registrant’s professional judgement.

118. The Panel noted that the Registrant admitted to hugging Patient 1 on two occasions and described one hug lasting 15 - 20 seconds. The Panel considered that this was a significantly long period of time for a hug and considered that this admission supported Patient 1’s description of the hug as intimate. The Panel considered there was no justification for hugging Patient 1 for 15 - 20 seconds and that such conduct was in breach of the Registrant’s professional boundaries.

119. The Panel noted the Registrant’s admission in evidence that putting Patient 1’s number in his phone was inappropriate. The Panel considered that this was in breach of the Information Governance procedures. In the Panel’s view the Registrant’s vague rationale for obtaining Patient 1’s number was not plausible. The Panel considered that there was no offer to the Registrant by Patient 1 to come for a cup of tea, but even if this had been the case the Registrant failed to acknowledge that accepting this in itself would have been a breach of professional boundaries.

120. The Panel considered that it was highly inappropriate that the Registrant attended the vicinity of Patient 1’s property on numerous occasions, and in one incident, to the detriment of another patient. Further, in the context of the interactions between Patient 1 and the Registrant the Panel also found that the Registrant’s gift of a cake to Patient 1 amounted to a further breach of professional boundaries.

121. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s explanation that the purpose of his visits to the Registrant’s address was because he was concerned for her welfare. Had this been the case the Panel considered that there were a number of other steps he could have taken including seeking advice or making a referral to the safeguarding team. The Panel noted the passage of time between the Registrant’s initial interaction with Patient 1 and his subsequent actions. He explained that there was a delay whilst he was on annual leave and the Panel considered that this was not indicative of an immediate concern on the Registrant’s part. The Panel also found the Registrant’s explanation inconsistent with his action on 26 August 2021, of deleting Patient 1’s phone number immediately after their interaction. He stated he did this because the offer of a cup of tea was no longer open, but did not take any further steps to safeguard, or signpost her to appropriate services.

122. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that the actions of the Registrant breached professional boundaries.

123. The Panel therefore found Particular 7, proved.

 

Particular 8

Your conduct in relation to paragraphs 1 – 6 above was sexually motivated.

124. Having considered the Particulars of the Allegation found proved and their context, the Panel went on to determine whether the conduct of the Registrant was sexually motivated. The Panel considered the advice that it had received in respect of the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). The Panel also noted the Practice Note provided by the HCPTS on ‘Making Decisions on a Registrant’s State of Mind’.

125. The Panel determined that the conduct of the Registrant amounted to conduct which was done in the pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

126. The Panel considered its findings in respect of the inappropriateness of the Registrant’s actions. The Panel considered that there was no clinical justification for the comments and actions taken by the Registrant. It considered that the Registrant’s explanation for his behaviour was implausible and in the absence of any credible alternative explanation for the conduct, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s motive was to pursue a future sexual relationship with Patient 1.

127. The Panel noted that the initial assessment with Patient 1 lasted a significant period of time, namely in excess of 2 hours, and it considered that there was no significant explanation offered by the Registrant as to why the call out took so long.

128. The Panel considered its conclusions in respect of the inappropriate comments that it found proved including reference to the Patient being a “special girl”, reference to them “getting together” and reference to whether or not Patient 1 took her clothes off and looked at herself naked in the mirror. The Panel considered that these comments were made by the Registrant in an attempt to build an inappropriate rapport with Patient 1 in the hope of pursuing a future sexual relationship. The Panel considered that the Registrant had not provided a plausible, innocent explanation for the conduct in his evidence and in the absence of such an explanation the Panel concluded that the conduct of the Registrant was sexually motivated.

129. The Panel noted its conclusions as to the hugging of Patient 1. The Panel considered that a 15 - 20 second hug was very long and noted Patient 1’s evidence that she felt that the hug felt intimate. The Panel did not consider that the hug was done in pursuit of sexual gratification, on the basis that there was no evidence of overtly sexual touching, however it considered that the hug formed part of other conduct which if viewed in context demonstrated that the Registrant was motivated to pursue a future sexual relationship with Patient 1.

130. The Panel noted its conclusions that the Registrant did not provide a justifiable excuse for putting Patient 1’s number in his phone. The Panel determined this conduct was highly inappropriate. The Panel considered that these actions, which the Registrant himself accepted were inappropriate, demonstrated the Registrant’s motives in respect of Patient 1 were not justified or appropriate. In the absence of a plausible explanation the Panel concluded that the conduct of the Registrant was sexually motivated.

131. Further, the Panel noted its conclusions in respect of it being highly inappropriate that the Registrant attended the vicinity of Patient 1’s property on numerous occasions and in one incident to the detriment of another patient. The Panel considered that this was further evidence of a motivation by the Registrant to pursue a future sexual relationship with the Patient. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant inappropriately gifted Patient 1 a cake, in the absence of a plausible explanation for such conduct the Panel consider this also to be further supporting evidence of the Registrant’s motivation to pursue a future sexual relationship with Patient 1.

132. Whilst Patient 1 was vulnerable, on the basis of the evidence before it and the submissions of the parties, the Panel noted that the HCPC did not submit that the Registrant specifically targeted Patient 1 because she was vulnerable. The Panel concluded that although the Registrant acted in a way, which viewed in context, demonstrated he was motivated to pursue a future sexual relationship with Patient 1, this was a clear misreading of their interaction as opposed to him targeting a vulnerable patient.

133. In all the circumstances the Panel considered that the actions of the Registrant were sexually motivated in that his conduct was done in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

134. The Panel therefore found Particular 8, proved.

 

Grounds and Impairment

HCPC Submissions

135. Mr Slack submitted that the facts found proved amounted to failings that fell far short of the standards expected of a Registered Paramedic. He submitted that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct.

136. He referred the Panel to the meaning prescribed to misconduct in the case of Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311, in which it was said:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the conduct to the profession. Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious …...”

137. Mr Slack invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant had committed a significant breach of the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics’ (2016) as follows:

Treat service users and carers with respect

1.1 You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.

Maintain appropriate boundaries

1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional insulated that this would apply

Communicate with service users and carers

2.1 You must be polite and considerate.

Manage Risk

6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues, as far as possible.

Personal and professional behaviour

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

138. Mr Slack invited the Panel to consider current impairment and have regard to the personal and public components of impairment.

139. Mr Slack referred the Panel to the cases of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). He submitted that the first three limbs identified in Grant were relevant to this case.

140. He submitted that the Registrant’s sexually motivated conduct towards Patient 1, combined with a lack of insight and lack of evidence of remediation, was such that the Panel should find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components of impairment.

141. Mr Slack submitted that sexual misconduct was not easily remediated, and the Registrant had not demonstrated evidence of remediation.

Registrant’s submissions

142. Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant set out that the Registrant did not wish to seek to persuade the Panel that the conduct found proved was not serious misconduct.

143. She referred the Panel to the positive testimonials provided on behalf of the Registrant and noted that the Registrant has not worked as a Paramedic since September 2021, in the region of 3 ½ years. Since his resignation he has been working at a pub. He has progressed in that role to a Sous Chef position and is second in charge in the kitchen.

144. Ms Robinson submitted that although his role is not related to clinical practice as a Paramedic, he does work with the public and there has been no repetition in his conduct. Ms Robinson noted that there are examples within the Registrant’s testimonials of him doing voluntary work and she noted the positive references about his attitude and his desire to try to help people.

145. Ms Robinson submitted that the Panel could be reassured that there was some insight in this case and referred the Panel to the Registrants reflective piece.

146. She stated that the Registrant acknowledged that a finding of current impairment was bound to follow, and he did not seek to persuade the Panel otherwise. She stated the Registrant acknowledges the need to uphold public confidence in the profession. Ms Robinson noted that the Registrant made admissions and recognised his overstepping of boundaries in respect of some of the factual particulars within the Allegation.

147. Ms Robinson stated the Registrant has shown some insight as he has sought to educate himself about professional boundaries, safeguarding, abuse of a position of trust and the conduct and ethics standards generally. She acknowledged that the Registrant’s clinical skills were not up to date. She submitted that the Registrant, in the aftermath of his suspension, was actively going to webinars and trying to keep his knowledge up to date. However, once he had resigned, and was subject to an Interim Suspension Order, he acknowledges he did much less in respect of keeping his skills up to date. He continues to read news digests from the College of Paramedics regularly.

 

Decision on Misconduct

148. On the basis of the facts found proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct. It took into account all the evidence received together with the submissions made by Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC and those made by Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant.

149. The Panel heard and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor. In considering this matter, the Panel exercised its own judgement. The Panel also took into account the public interest, which includes protection of the public, maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

150. When considering whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct, the Panel noted that not all breaches of the HCPC’s 'Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics' need amount to a finding of misconduct.

151. The Panel noted the advice provided in respect of the authority of Roylance v General Medical Council (No.2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) in which the Court referred to Roylance and described misconduct as “a falling short by omission or commission of the standards of conduct expected among medical practitioners, and such falling short must be serious” such that it would be “regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

152. The Panel adopted a two-step process in its consideration. Firstly, the Panel considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. Secondly, and only if the facts proved were found to amount to misconduct, the Panel would go on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a result of that misconduct.

153. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to a breach of the HCPC’s 'Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics' (2016) as follows;

Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers

1.1 You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.

Maintain appropriate boundaries

1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional insulated that this would apply

Communicate with service users and carers

2.1 You must be polite and considerate.

Respect confidentiality

5.1 You must treat information about service users as confidential.

Manage Risk

6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues, as far as possible.

6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

Personal and professional behaviour

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession

154. The Panel considered that the public should quite rightly be entitled to expect, that patients should not be subject to inappropriate and unsolicited comments or hugging. A patient’s personal information should not be obtained for improper purposes and patients should not be subjected to inappropriate visits or gifting. Equally other patients should not suffer a detriment due to a paramedic inappropriately making an unsanctioned diversion on route to an emergency call. The Registrant’s course of conduct was sustained in his pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Patient 1. At the relevant time he failed to consider the fact that his conduct significantly breached professional boundaries.

155. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour was demonstrative of conduct that fundamentally undermines the public’s trust in both the Registrant and in the profession generally. The Panel considered the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings. In doing so, it identified that the Registrant engaged in a sustained course of unwanted sexually motivated conduct towards Patient 1.

156. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s breach of the Standards were, both individually and collectively, sufficiently serious departures from those expected of a Paramedic as to amount to misconduct.

157. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s conduct as found proved amounted to misconduct.

 

Decision on Impairment

158. The Panel went on to decide whether, as a result of his misconduct, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

159. The Panel had regard to all of the evidence presented in this case, including the submissions of Mr Slack and those of Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant.

160. The Panel also heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’.

161. The Panel considered the judgement of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said:

“In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances”.

162. The Panel considered the test formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report, which was revisited by Mrs Justice Cox in the case of Grant at Paragraph 76 as follows:

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor’s misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he:

a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or

c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or

d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future”.

163. On the basis of the Panel’s findings, the Panel considered that the first three limbs of the test were engaged. The Panel, as set out in its finding on misconduct, found that the Registrant’s sexually motivated behaviour brought the profession into disrepute. The Panel also concluded that acting in this way breached a fundamental tenet of the profession by not acting appropriately towards Patient 1 and his course of conduct caused detriment to another patient.

164. The Panel considered with care the Registrant’s reflective piece and his positive testimonials. However, the Panel had concerns that despite the Registrant’s reflection, he has not yet adequately demonstrated meaningful insight into his conduct. By way of example, throughout the hearing, he continued to maintain that his actions were due to his concern for Patient 1’s welfare, yet he took no positive steps to safeguard this and on the 26 August 2021, when he realised that Patient 1 was not interested in engaging with him socially, he deleted her number.

165. The Panel noted that the Registrant has given some expression of regret or remorse throughout the hearing, but in his reflections he has not fully understood the impact of his actions, either on Patient 1, Patient 2 or on the profession generally.

166. The Registrant has not provided any meaningful evidence of steps taken to address his behaviour, for example by undertaking courses to remediate his failings.

167. As such, the Panel concluded that, whilst his attitudinal failings were potentially capable of being remediated, such failings were very difficult to remediate and the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had, in practice, remediated his failings in this regard, such that it could conclude that his misconduct was highly unlikely to be repeated.

168. On the contrary, given his limited insight and absence of persuasive evidence of remediation, the Panel concluded that there remained a significant ongoing risk of his misconduct being repeated. In that regard the Panel considered that there is a real risk of repetition.

169. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

170. The Panel also took into account the overarching objectives of the HCPC to protect, promote, and maintain the health, safety, and wellbeing of the public and patients, and to uphold and protect the wider public interest, which includes promoting and maintaining public confidence in the Paramedic profession and upholding proper professional standards for members of the profession.

171. The Panel therefore considered that, given the serious nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, relating as it did to sexually motivated behaviour towards a patient, that had yet to be fully remediated, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in all the circumstances.

172. Having regard to all of the above the Panel found that, by reason of his misconduct, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component of impairment.

 

Sanction

HCPC submissions

173. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC explained that the HCPC took a neutral position as to sanction which he stated was a matter for the Panel. He drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s ‘Sanction Policy’ (SP) and noted the section within the policy in respect of sexual misconduct.

Registrant’s submissions

174. Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant reminded the Panel that the purpose of sanction was not to be punitive. She submitted that the Registrant was aware that the Panel may be considering sanctions at the higher end of the scale.

175. Ms Robinson stated that although she did not wish to go behind the Panel’s decision in respect of the conduct being sustained, she noted that the time frame in its entirety was approximately a month. She asked the Panel to consider the number of times the Registrant actually approached Patient 1. She further submitted that his approaches and attempts to contact Patient 1 happened within in a limited time frame, and after 26 August 2021 there was no further contact.

176. Ms Robinson requested the Panel take into consideration the Registrant’s testimonials and the positive things that the writers of those testimonials had said. She noted that the Registrant had no fitness to practise history.

177. In respect of sexual misconduct, Ms Robinson submitted that the Registrant’s conduct should be viewed under a large umbrella of cases of this type. She noted that the Panel had not found that the Registrant was motivated by sexual gratification and that he had not deliberately targeted Patient 1 due to her vulnerability. She submitted therefore that the conduct was at the lower end of the scale in respect of sexual misconduct.

178. Ms Robinson noted the Panel’s findings, in respect of insight and remediation being limited. She submitted the Registrant would welcome the opportunity to reflect further and to perhaps learn from the whole process. Ms Robinson noted that the Registrant currently works with the public and asked that the Panel take this into account, although she accepted the Registrant is not working in a healthcare setting. She submitted that there has been no fitness to practice issues since the Allegation.

179. Ms Robinson reminded the Panel that it should look at the least restrictive sanction first and invited the Panel to impose a sanction that allows the Registrant the opportunity, at some point in the future, to return to the profession that he loves. Ms Robinson submitted that the sanction of striking off would be disproportionate in this case.

 

Decision on Sanction

180. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the SP. She reminded the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order, and apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest. The Panel should also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors and bear in mind the principle of proportionality. She reminded the Panel that the primary purpose of imposing a sanction was protection of the public and the public interest and that there was a need to balance those interests with the interests of the Registrant.

181. In reaching its decision on whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one, the Panel has reminded itself of its conclusions in relation to the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct as set out in its determination on impairment. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant continues to pose a risk to the public and to the reputation of the profession, and that there remains a real risk of repetition of his misconduct. As such, the Panel considered that any sanction it imposed should reflect the need to uphold the public interest and mark the seriousness of the misconduct found proved.

182. In that regard, the Panel has had due regard to paragraphs 76-77 of the SP, noting the impact of sexual misconduct on public confidence, this states:

“Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. It includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating someone The misconduct can be directed towards:

• service users, carers and family members;

• colleagues; and

• members of the public.

Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction. Where it deviates from this approach, it should provide clear reasoning”.

183. The Panel noted the evidence of Patient 1 and the impact that this incident had upon her. The incident resulted in her calling 999, to the police due to her concern about the Registrant’s presence at her home address in the late evening. It was evident from Patient 1’s evidence that the incident had the effect of making her feel threatened or intimidated. Patient 1 confirmed that as a result of the incident she would no longer call an ambulance if she had an issue relating to her [Redacted].

184. The Panel considered all the information before it. In doing so, the Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

i. The Registrant’s misconduct took place over a sustained period and the Registrant failed on several occasions within that period to acknowledge and stop his breaches of professional boundaries;

ii. The Registrant’s conduct caused emotional harm to Patient 1;

iii. The Registrant’s actions also had the potential of causing harm to Patient 2 due to his unsanctioned diversion on route to an emergency call;

iv. Patient 1 was evidently vulnerable due to the reasons for the call out and the information she disclosed to the Registrant;

v. The conduct represented an abuse of a position of trust;

vi. The Registrant has not meaningfully demonstrated that he has remediated his failings;

vii. The Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his failings;

viii. There has only been a limited expression of remorse or regret and a limited apology.

185. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registrant does not have any previous regulatory findings recorded against him and no prior or subsequent complaints have been made;

ii. The Registrant positively engaged in the regulatory process and has provided the Panel with a number of positive testimonials;

iii. The Registrant did not continue to pursue contact with the Patient after their interaction on the 26 August 2021.

186. Considering all the circumstances in the round, the Panel considered the Registrant’s sexual misconduct to be at the lower end of the spectrum of sexual misconduct. The Panel noted its conclusions in respect of the Registrant not deliberately targeting Patient 1 and there being no pursuit of sexual gratification in his hug with Patient 1. However, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions represented a serious breach of professional boundaries which would fall at the top end of the scale. In respect of this the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct represented a deep-seated attitudinal concerns, and it was evident from the Registrant’s conduct that he placed his needs in the pursuit of a future sexual relationship, above the needs of a vulnerable patient with serious consequences.

187. The Panel approached the issue of sanction starting with the least restrictive first, bearing in mind the need for proportionality and to take into account the Registrant’s interests. Having done so, it concluded that taking no further action would not reflect the nature and gravity of the misconduct. The Panel concluded that taking no action would not be adequate to protect the public or the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process given the risks identified. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

188. The Panel next considered mediation but having had due regard to the circumstances of this case, such an outcome was inappropriate to address a finding of sexual misconduct. It therefore concluded that this was not an appropriate outcome.

189. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the SP. The Panel concluded that this was also not an appropriate outcome because:

i. For the reasons set out in its determination on misconduct in relation to sexual misconduct and current impairment, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s misconduct to be minor in nature;

ii. The Registrant has demonstrated limited insight;

iii. The Panel considered that there remained a real risk of repetition given the lack of effective remediation and insight into his failings.

190. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate. It had regard to paragraphs 105 - 109 of the SP. It has concluded that such a sanction would neither be appropriate, nor proportionate, to address the public interest concerns identified. The Panel concluded that workable and appropriate conditions could not be formulated that would meaningfully address the attitudinal concerns identified in relation to the Registrant’s sexual misconduct. In any event, the Panel concluded that the nature of the misconduct found proved was too serious for such a sanction. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that imposing a Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate in the circumstances.

191. The Panel next considered the sanction of suspension. It had regard to paragraph 121 of the SP. The Panel has borne in mind that this would be an appropriate sanction to impose if, even though the Allegation is serious, the conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with the Registrant remaining on the register, the Registrant had insight and that the issues were unlikely to be repeated, factors that the Panel concluded were absent in this case.

192. In all the circumstances and given the real risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel concluded that the imposition of a Suspension Order was neither the appropriate, nor proportionate, sanction to impose. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s breaches of professional boundaries and his sustained sexually motivated behaviour towards a patient was behaviour that is fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.

193. The Panel therefore considered whether a Striking Off Order was appropriate and in doing so, took account of paragraphs 130 – 132 of the SP. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has shown limited insight and despite a significant passage of time has provided no evidence of steps taken to remediate even though there are a number of concerns that he has made admissions to.

194. The Panel considered the submission on behalf of the Registrant that there has been no repeated misconduct but noted that the Registrant has not worked in a regulated setting for 3 ½ years and therefore the Panel placed limited weight on that submission. The Panel notes that the Registrant at the sanction stage has, through his representative, expressed a desire to return to the profession at some stage. However, the Panel considered that the Registrant has provided no evidence of steps taken to engage in remediation in order to address his deep-seated attitudinal concerns and has not made any significant attempts to keep his skills up-to-date. In all the circumstances the Panel was unconvinced that the Registrant had shown willingness to resolve matters.

195. The Panel considered in order to protect the public and the public interest, any sanction less than a Striking Off Order would not be appropriate.

196. The Panel determined that given the nature and gravity of the matters found proved and the real risks identified, a lesser sanction would lack the necessary deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

197. The Panel therefore concluded that a Striking Off Order was the appropriate sanction to impose because:

i. The matters found proved, as set out in the Panel’s determination on misconduct, represented serious breaches of the Standards in relation to unwanted sexually motivated conduct and breaching of professional boundaries; and

ii. For the reasons set out earlier in this determination, the Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his conduct.

198. The Panel has considered the Registrant’s interests. However, in light of its findings, the Panel considered that the need to protect the public and the public interest by sending a clear message upholding and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, outweighed the Registrant's interests.

199. The Panel accordingly determined to impose a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Craig Michael Davis from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr Slack made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period and allow for any appeal to be disposed of. Mr Slack submitted that an Interim Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of his submissions that those grounds are satisfied, he relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issue.

2. Ms Robinson on behalf of the Registrant did not oppose the application.

 

Decision

3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’ dated September 2024. She advised that the Panel may impose an Interim Order if it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the Registrant.

4. In its decision on impairment the Panel decided that there is a real risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary for protection of members of the public. An Interim Order is also otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in its substantive sanction decision.

5. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period but concluded that they would not provide sufficient protection for the public for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

6. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months. An Order of that length is necessary because if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order, the final resolution of that appeal could well take 18 months. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Striking Off Order the Interim Suspension Order will fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal expires.

7. 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.

8. 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 Mr Craig Michael Davis

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
28/04/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off