Jacob Bailey
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA48639):
1.Between November 2021 and January 2022, you disclosed confidential information in relation to patients in the following posts that you made to a Facebook messenger group:
a. On 11 November 2021, a picture from the Mobile Data Terminal (“MDT”) with a patient’s address clearly visible.
b. On 20 November 2021, in relation to a patient:
i. a picture of a Defib monitor showing vital observations including ECG and/or Stats and/or Pulse.
ii. two ECG pictures
c. On 25 November 2021, a picture of a patient’s MDT Category 1 call with their address clearly visible.
d. On 16 December 2021, a picture of a patient’s MDT showing a patient’s conditions.
e. On 5 January 2022, a picture from the MDT with a map of the route to the scene clearly visible.
f. On 10 January 2022, a picture of a patient’s MDT Category 2 call showing details of a call out and a patient’s conditions.
2. Between November 2021 and February 2022, in relation to patients in your care, you did not communicate in a professional manner in that you made the following posts to a Facebook messenger group:
a. On 17 November 2021, “On this job in Harwich, a cat shits on the floor, smells of weed and there was porn on the tv....sums it up nicely”
b. On 20 November 2021, “I’m falling asleep on this patient’s sofa”
c. On 24 November 2021, “With a patient who won’t stop moaning in pain F***** hurry up” followed by two laughing emojis
d. On 19 December 2021, you posted “Too Old but the F***** didn’t have DNAR” when referring to a patient
e. On 24 December 2021, “Maybe if she does arrest, she’s easier to manage” in reference to a patient who had a NEWS score of 9
f. On 31 December 2021, “Made a gp appointment for a 24-year-old and she threw a strop cos she wanted to go to A&E for D&V, I couldn’t help but laugh oops” and/or “Still not taking her, she’s a wet wipe”
g. On 10 January 2022, “He’s a F***** nut case” and/or “Started windmilling his C*** about” in reference to a patient who had taken drugs
h. On 25 February 2022, referred to a patient as a “cheeky cu**”
3. Between November 2021 and January 2022, you did not communicate with colleagues in a professional manner in that you made the following posts to a Facebook messenger group:
a. On 4 November 2021,
i. “I think I’ll lift some fatty down the stairs tomorrow and do my back in” when referring to calling in sick to work the next day.
ii. “certified milf” and / or “Why do you think I call her domalomashlong” in reference to Colleague G
b. On 5 November 2021, “She can’t fit her donkey d*** between her legs when driving” in reference to Colleague G
c. On 6 November 2021, “[Colleague G] got fanny flutters” and / or “get ya c*** out [Colleague F]”
d. On 12 November 2021,
i. “rude and abrupt” and / or “I am not a fan of her” in reference to a Colleague P
ii. “@[Colleague G] are you a retard” and / or “Donkey c***” in reference to Colleague G
iii. “F*** off cu** go catheterise yourself” in reference to Colleague B
e. On 7 December 2021, “F*** me he’s qualified?!” and / or “Who did he suck off to allow that” in reference to Colleague N
f. On 12 December 2021, “Oh the great [REDACTED] faulty” when referring to Colleague O
g. On 10 January 2022, “[Colleague R] is on the phone to the mong head at SPOC”
h. On 11 January 2022, “The mid dispatcher must be on the blob today”
4. On 12 November 2021, you did not communicate in a professional manner in that you posted “Faggy waggy” to a Facebook messenger group.
5. On 20 December 2021, you did not communicate in a professional manner in that you posted “Spoons is full of pikies” to a Facebook messenger group.
6. Your comment at Particular 5 is racist and/or abusive.
7. On unknown dates, you did not communicate in a professional manner in that you posted images of yourself wearing your paramedic uniform and swearing at the camera to a Facebook messenger group.
8. On an unknown date, you removed both hands from the steering wheel for a period of approximately three seconds when driving an ambulance.
9. The matters set out in particulars 1 to 8 above amount to misconduct.
10. By reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
1. The Panel has been convened to consider an application made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant that the HCPC’s Allegation should be resolved by the Registrant agreeing to be removed from the HCPC Register and the HCPC withdrawing the Allegation. Both the HCPC and the Registrant have entered into a formal, written Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”). The purpose of the present hearing is for the Panel to decide if the VRA should be permitted to take effect.
Background
2. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic. He commenced employment with the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“EEAS”) in 2019. At the time of the events covered by the Allegation, the Registrant was a Newly Qualified Paramedic.
3. In November 2021, the Registrant created a Facebook group chat for colleagues to organise a social work event.
4. On 16 May 2022, the Registrant was suspended as a result of an investigation into comments and posts that he made in the Facebook group chat.
5. On 19 May 2022, the Registrant made a self referral to the HCPC. In the context of that referral, the Registrant made a reference to himself being a “whistleblower” with regard to the Facebook group, however he subsequently stated that that reference was a misunderstanding.
6. Between May and July 2022, EEAS carried out an investigation. The investigation revealed that a total of 59,615 posts, comments, reactions and other actions were made on the Facebook group chat between November 2021 and April 2022. It also revealed that on occasions the Registrant had left the group, but, having left, he rejoined it or was added back to it by others. The Registrant made a total of 2,840 posts. Of this total, 54 posts by the Registrant were identified for further exploration.
7. The Trust also provided video evidence of the Registrant taking his hands off the steering whilst driving a double staffed ambulance. It is unknown if there was a patient in the ambulance at the time.
8. As part of the investigation carried out by the HCPC’s Solicitors, an employee of EEAS prepared a document summarising the comments and posts made by the Registrant. The document included screenshots of his posts. This document has been provided to the Panel.
9. On 22 August 2022, EEAS held a disciplinary hearing at the conclusion of which the Registrant was summarily dismissed. The Registrant appealed the sanction of summary dismissal imposed, but on 5 December 2022 his appeal was dismissed.
10. On 11 July 2023, the Investigating Committee referred an Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee for hearing, but, on 3 May 2024, on the application of the HCPC, the Investigating Committee referred an amended Allegation for hearing. The Allegation as amended is set out at the head of this determination.
11. On 13 November 2024, the Registrant sent an email to the Case Manager at the HCPC dealing with his case asking whether his case could be disposed of by way of a VRA. Following other communications on the topic of voluntary removal, on 25 November 2024, the Registrant sent a completed “CONSENSUAL DISPOSAL REQUEST PROFORMA” document to the HCPC. With that document he sent an 18-page document of the same date headed, “FINAL STATEMENT / VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL APPLICATION” (hereafter “Final Statement document”).
12. Given the nature of the application being considered by the Panel, it is not necessary to explain at length the contents of the Final Statement document. It is, however, material to the issues being considered to record the fact that included in the document is a section in which the Registrant commented on the specific elements of the Allegation he was admitting, a section headed, “Apology”, and a section headed, “Reason for application to Voluntarily Remove”.
13. On 26 January 2025, the Registrant signed the VRA in the presence of a witness and returned it to the HCPC. A copy of the executed VRA has been made available to the Panel.
Submissions to the Panel
14. In advance of the hearing the Panel was provided with a Skeleton Argument dated 29 January 2025, in which the HCPC’s case was set out. The document included an explanation of the circumstances in which the matters complained of in the Allegation arose, and the procedural history of the case, including the steps leading up to the presentation of the VRA to the Panel. In submitting that the matter is suitable for disposal by a VRA, the document included the following:
“(a) The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation. They have signed a consensual disposal request pro forma which sets out the allegation that is capable of proof and confirmed that they admit the substance of that allegation, that it amounts to misconduct, and their fitness to practise is impaired as a result.
(b) Voluntary removal adequately protects the public. The Registrant would be removed from the HCPC register and would not be entitled to practise as a Paramedic. They have undertaken not to seek to return to the register within a period of five years, and should they attempt to do so at that point, they would have to demonstrate that they had fully remediated their current impairment.
(c) Voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the professions and promoting proper professional standards is best addressed by removing the Registrant from the register at the earliest opportunity.”
15. In oral submissions to the Panel, the Presenting Officer outlined the case in terms that were consistent with the Skeleton Argument, and she made submissions as to why it would be appropriate to give effect to the VRA in terms that accorded with the passages quoted above.
16. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel on affirmation. He stated that he stood by his decision to seek removal from the HCPC Register, accepting that he did not wish to practise as a Paramedic in the future. His evidence accorded with what he wrote in the Final Statement document. He apologised and stated that he was deeply ashamed of his behaviour. He acknowledged that his actions meant that he fell short not only of the expectations of a Paramedic, but also of a human being, and that accordingly his behaviour had an impact that was both professional and personal. He stated that he had reflected deeply on what had occurred and had done his best to understand why he acted as he did, and that he had tried his best to remediate his actions.
Decision on Application
17. The Panel heeded the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Disposal of Cases by Consent” dated March 2018, and it accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that it is for it, the Panel, to decide whether the voluntary removal agreement should be given effect; the fact that the HCPC considers that the VRA being allowed to take effect would be consistent with its statutory objective of protecting the public is a factor to which the Panel is entitled to have regard, but it is not determinative of the issue. Consistent with the advice it received, the Panel considered four issues on which it should be satisfied before it would be appropriate to accede to the application that the VRA should be permitted to take effect. Those issues were:
• Given the serious consequences of the VRA taking effect, that, in seeking voluntary removal, the Registrant has made an application that is both unequivocal and informed.
• That a clear admission of the allegation had been made by the Registrant. This is an important requirement because the admission of the allegation would be a factor to be considered in the event that the Registrant seeks re-admission to the HCPC Register after a period of five years has passed.
• That giving effect to the VRA would provide a proper degree of public protection.
• That there were no other public interest considerations which would make the expedited disposal of the Allegation by way of a VRA inappropriate.
18. The conclusions of the Panel on the four issues it was advised to consider were as follows:
• The Panel was entirely satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the consequences of the VRA being given effect. His evidence before the Panel made that clear. That evidence was given in the context that it was preceded by his signing of the VRA document, the preparation of the considered terms of the Final Statement document he made on 25 November 2024 and also his communications that preceded the presentation of that document.
• The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant has fully admitted the HCPC’s Allegation and the particulars of it. He not only admitted the Allegation by the Final Statement document (in which he made specific comments about the various particulars contained in it), but also within the body of the VRA document where the admission is coupled with an explicit acknowledgement that the admission could be used in the event of a future application to be re-admitted to the HCPC Register.
• The consequences of permitting the VRA to have effect are indistinguishable from the consequences of a striking off order, which would be the most severe sanction that could be imposed were the case to proceed to a final hearing in the ordinary way and the Allegation to be proven against the Registrant. For that reason, the Panel concluded that a proper degree of public protection would be afforded.
• When the Panel considered whether there were any wider public interest considerations which suggested that the application should not be acceded to it acknowledged that there would be cases in which the Allegation would be of matters so egregious that it would not be appropriate to bypass a public airing of the issues at a final hearing even if the possible sanction outcome could be no more severe than the effect of a VRA. However, having carefully considered the matter, the Panel did not consider that the circumstances of this case were such that this consideration was engaged. While acknowledging the seriousness of the Allegation, the Panel was nevertheless satisfied that informed members of the public as well as fellow Paramedics would acknowledge that in all the circumstances of the case (including the terms of the Final Statement document and the Registrant’s oral evidence to the Panel) it would be appropriate for the VRA to be allowed to take effect.
19. In the light of these conclusions the Panel finds that it is appropriate to accede to the application that the VRA should be given effect. Accordingly, the Panel Chair will sign the Notice of Withdrawal in the form set out at Annex C to the Disposal of Cases by Consent Practice Note.
Order
The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Jabob Bailey from the Register with immediate effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Jacob Bailey
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26/02/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |