Edward Ezekiel Riding

Preliminary Matters

Application to Amend the Allegation

1. In an email sent to the Registrant’s legal team on 17 January 2025 it was outlined that an amendment to the wording of the allegation would be sought on the first day of the hearing. The amendment sought was to change the wording of Particular 1 to make the allegation clearer and in line with the certificate of conviction.
The initial allegation read as follows:

‘On 29 January 2024, at Maidstone Crown Court, you were convicted of ‘Cause death by careless / inconsiderate driving Offence Date: 05 Jan 2022 on 05/01/2022 at Sevenoaks, Kent caused the death of [REDACTED] by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle [REDACTED] without due care and attention’.

2. Mr Tobias, on behalf of the HCPC applied at the outset of the hearing to amend the particulars of the allegation to read as follows:

‘On 29 January 2024, at Maidstone Crown Court, you were convicted of causing death by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, without due care and attention. [The offence was committed on 5 Jan 2022]’

Mr Tobias submitted that the amended wording served to clarify the allegation and better reflected the certificate of conviction. He submitted that the proposed amendments did not substantially alter the nature of the case against the Registrant and the amendment could be made without injustice.

3. Ms Herbert on behalf of the Registrant did not oppose this application.

4. The Panel was mindful of the issues of fairness and the avoidance of prejudice. The Panel considered that it was fair to allow the application to amend the particulars of the allegation as they did not fundamentally alter the case against the Registrant and better reflected the wording contained on the certificate of conviction. There was no prejudice to the Registrant and the Panel considered the amendments could be made without injustice.

Application for part of the hearing to be held in private.

5. During her submissions Ms Herbert requested that parts of the hearing which related to the Registrant’s health and private and family life should be held in private.

6. Mr Tobias did not oppose that application.

7. The Panel had regard to the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel took account of the principles set out in the HCPTS Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private. The Panel also had regard to the need for transparency in the regulatory process. The Panel determined that those parts of the hearing that concern the Registrant’s health and personal life should be conducted in private for the protection of his private life. The Panel considered that discrete matters within Ms Herbert’s submissions fell into that category and the Panel therefore granted the application under Rule 10 1 (a) for those parts of the hearing to be in private.

Background

8. At the time of the offence the Registrant was a Registered Paramedic working for South East Coast Ambulance Service. The HCPC received a referral dated 12 January 2023.

9. On 5 January 2022, at just after 20.10, the Registrant was the Paramedic driver responding to an emergency call. The Registrant was crewed with the deceased victim – Person A – and another trainee paramedic. The blue lights were activated on the ambulance, and it was travelling towards the exit of the A21 at Morley’s junction in order to enter the roundabout and re-join the A21 on the opposite north bound carriageway.

10. As the vehicle approached the junction the recording within the vehicle confirmed that it was travelling at speeds up to 89 miles per hour.

11. Before the exit for the junction there was another exit into a parking area layby. This earlier exit was marked with police signage at half a mile, quarter of a mile, and 270 yards before the exit to the layby. Parked within the layby were several heavy goods vehicles, none of which had illuminated lights.

12. As the ambulance passed the entrance to the layby it was travelling at 84 miles per hour decreasing under braking to 81 miles per hour within the slip road to the layby.

14. On entering the slip road to the layby, the ambulance partially mounted the offside kerb, travelled across the verge before re-joining the road surface of the layby and then the offside of the ambulance collided with the rear nearside corner of one of the parked trucks before striking the rear of another parked vehicle trapping the front seat occupants of the ambulance and the parked vehicle. The speed at impact was estimated to be 52 miles per hour.

15. Both the Registrant and the deceased were trapped in the ambulance. The other occupant of the ambulance was able to walk out of the rear.

16. Person A died at the scene.

17. The other occupant suffered severe concussion, a bleed on the brain, and bruising to the right side of the arm and has since made a full recovery.

18. The driver of the second vehicle that was struck by the ambulance suffered a split to his left eyebrow, swollen eyes, cuts and bruises, and a torn ligament.

19. The Registrant was airlifted to hospital and suffered rib fractures, a dislocated left hip, a closed tibia fracture, fractures to his kneecap, and had to undergo several corrective operations.

20. The Registrant appeared at Maidstone Magistrate’s Court on 20 November 2023. The case was sent for a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing on 18 December 2023 at Maidstone Crown Court. The case was adjourned at the request of the Defence. The Registrant had no memory of the accident and was advised by his legal team to await disclosure of the evidence before entering a plea. The Registrant pleaded guilty on 29 January 2024, and the case was adjourned for sentence. The Registrant was sentenced on 17 April 2024 for the offence of causing death by driving without due care and attention. The Registrant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment suspended for 18 months, an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours and disqualified from driving for 15 months.

21. At the outset of the hearing Ms Herbert on behalf of the Registrant admitted the fact of the conviction.

Decision on Facts

22. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s admission together with the documentary evidence in relation to the conviction. In making its findings, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests with the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Panel also had regard to the HCPCTS Practice Note relating to admissions.

23. Further, the Panel had regard to Rule 10(d) of the rules which states that “where a registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or in Scotland an extract of conviction) shall be admissible as proof of the findings of fact on which it was based”.

24. The Panel considered the Certificate of Conviction dated 27 June 2024 from Maidstone Crown Court. In view of this document and the Registrant’s admission, the Panel found particular 1 of the Allegation proved.

Decision on Grounds

25. In light of the findings made regarding the facts of the conviction the Panel was satisfied that the statutory ground of conviction was made out.

Decision on Impairment

26. The Panel then had to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, in light of the Registrant’s conviction. The Panel had sight of the main hearing bundle and the Registrant’s bundle. The Panel was assisted by the HCPC’s case summary. In addition, the Registrant provided details of his continuing professional development (CPD) activities.

27. The Panel heard submissions on the issue of impairment from the HCPC. Mr Tobias submitted that the Panel should have careful regard to the transcript of the sentencing remarks made by the judge in the criminal case which gave a detailed analysis of the offence and surrounding circumstances. He submitted that in particular the Panel should note that there had been concerns raised about the manner of the Registrant’s driving on occasions before the fatal collision. He submitted that the Panel should have regard to the fact that the offence occurred whilst the Registrant was working as a paramedic responding to an emergency call and although he was permitted to exceed the speed limit, the Panel should take account of the speed at which the ambulance was travelling as well as the failure to have regard to the signage which marked the exit to the layby.

28. He further submitted that the overall nature and gravity of the offence, which had resulted in the death of a colleague, was such that a member of the public would be shocked if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances.

29. Ms Herbert on behalf of the Registrant set out in detail the nature and extent of the Registrant’s insight, remediation and remorse. She submitted that the Registrant’s reflective piece demonstrated that he had fully understood what had happened and taken responsibility for his actions. She submitted that the Registrant had complete insight and was very remorseful. Ms Herbert submitted that the Registrant had expressed his regret and his desire to “change places” with Person A. She submitted that he is constantly aware of the consequences of his actions and the testimonials demonstrate that his character has been forever changed by the events. Ms Herbert submitted that the Registrant pleaded guilty and has completed the community work required by the sentence. He will remain subject to the driving ban until April 2025.

30. Ms Herbert highlighted to the Panel that there was no evidence that the Registrant’s driving had been poor leading up to the collision and there was no evidence of malice or other improper motive. Ms Herbert submitted that the judge had not considered it necessary to require the Registrant to undertake an extended re-test to address any poor attitude to driving.

31. In addition, Ms Herbert submitted that the Registrant would be required to take a further advanced driving test before being allowed to drive an ambulance. She submitted that the Registrant was not sure that he would even want to drive an ambulance again. Ms Herbert told the Panel that the Registrant has not been undertaking work as a Paramedic, but he has been keeping up to date with developments by utilising his own online research and attending a conference.

32. Ms Herbert submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant had taken all necessary steps to remediate his failings and that he posed no risk of repeating his conduct. She submitted that as a result of the criminal proceedings and the sentence imposed by the criminal court there was no further need for a finding of impairment to uphold proper professional standards. She submitted that the public interest was served by the criminal proceedings and that the level of remorse, remediation and insight shown by the Registrant meant that confidence in the profession would not be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

33. Ms Herbert drew the Panel’s attention to the cases of Fleishmann [Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87] and Patel [Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council (Patel) [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin)] and stated that these cases were authority for the principle that a finding of impairment was not required solely on the basis that the Registrant was still subject to the suspended portion of his sentence.

Panel Decision on Impairment

34. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and the Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations’. The Panel’s task is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence.

35. The Panel is mindful of the forward looking test for impairment and the need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the Registrant’s conviction brings the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in the profession.

36. The Panel, after reviewing all the evidence in this case, and the advice from the Legal Assessor, has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

37. The Panel regarded the offence as being extremely serious. There was evidence in the transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks, that the Registrant’s inattention to the signage was not momentary and he was driving at an excessive speed. The Panel considered that the Registrant was trusted and expected to keep his colleagues safe. The Panel considered that his inattention and carelessness resulted in the death of Person A and significant injuries to others.

38. The Panel noted that the Registrant pleaded guilty and within his reflection he has accepted responsibility. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s remorse was genuine, and it accepted that he was in no doubt of the devastating effect his actions had caused. The Panel had the benefit of testimonial evidence that suggested that the Registrant had been changed by these events and they had deeply affected him.

39. The Panel had information regarding the steps taken by the Registrant to keep his knowledge and skills up to date and it accepted he had a desire to return to work as a paramedic. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not recently been working as a paramedic and is currently the subject of a driving ban so there was no evidence of current safe driving. There was some evidence that concerns about the Registrant’s driving had been raised by others prior to the collision. However, the Panel noted that there was no evidence that this collision had been caused by an underlying cavalier attitude and the evidence from person B was that there were no concerns of this nature about the Registrant’s driving on that night. Taking these factors into account the Panel considered that the significant level of insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant indicated that the risk of repetition of the Registrant’s conduct was low.

40. The Panel went on to consider whether a finding of impairment is necessary on public interest grounds. In addressing this component of impairment, the Committee had careful regard to the critically important public issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:

“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of…the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

41. The Panel considered this matter very carefully. The Panel noted that Person A was killed and there was significant harm caused to colleagues and members of the public as a consequence of the collision which led to the conviction. Further, resulting criminal proceedings and the custodial sentence imposed, seriously undermined public trust in the profession.

42. The Panel noted the submissions made by Ms Herbert that the public interest has been satisfied as the Registrant has been through criminal proceedings and been given a sentence which he will be required to declare in any future job application. However, the Panel did not accept that this was sufficient to address the public interest or absolved this Panel of its responsibilities in upholding the overarching objective.

43. The Panel considered that public confidence in the profession and the regulator would be undermined if a finding of current impairment was not made taking into account all of the circumstances of this case. The Panel considered that there was a need to make a finding of impairment to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that the nature and seriousness of the conviction brought the profession into disrepute and a finding of impairment was required.

44. Prior to submissions on sanction the Registrant member made the parties aware that he recalled that there had been a “prevention of future deaths” report issued by a coroner to a Trust which he thought may be related to this case. The Registrant member explained that this recollection had come to him in a professional capacity, and he recalled that it related to the Trust and was not a criticism of the Registrant.

45. On behalf of the HCPC Mr Tobias submitted that in the circumstances he did not consider that this disclosure suggested any bias. He submitted that pursuant to the test as set out in Porter v Magill and another [2002] AC 357 there was no possibility that a reasonable and fair minded observer would conclude that there was any bias.

46. On behalf of the Registrant Ms Herbert agreed with the analysis of Mr Tobias and submitted that there was not any bias and that the Registrant member would be able to put the matter out of his mind. There was no application for recusal of the Registrant member or the Panel.

47. The Panel invited legal advice, and the Legal Assessor reiterated the approach was set out by Mr Tobias and contained in the case of Porter v Magill and another [2002] AC 357. She advised that the Panel should consider whether there was any possibility that a reasonable and fair minded observer would consider there was bias.

48. The Panel considered that the knowledge held by the Registrant member was non-specific and ultimately not relevant to its consideration of the Registrant’s case. The Panel considered that it was able to put this information from its mind and there was no possibility that a reasonable and fair minded observer could conclude that the Registrant panel member was biased. The Panel determined to proceed with the case.

Decision on Sanction

HCPC Submissions

49. Mr Tobias did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction. However, he drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPCTS Sanctions Policy (“Sanctions Policy”). He submitted that there was some evidence of mitigating features, in that the Registrant had made admissions, and entered an early guilty plea. He submitted that the Registrant had been subject to an interim conditions of practice order since 22 May 2023 and there have been no concerns raised. He invited the Panel to consider as aggravating features that the conduct of the registrant caused the death of Person A and injury to others and was a breach of trust with regard to the registrant’s responsibility to keep his colleagues safe.

50. In conclusion, he submitted that the Panel ought to impose a proportionate sanction in accordance with the Sanctions Policy.

Registrant’s submissions

51. Ms Herbert took the Panel through the Sanctions Policy. She submitted that although it was accepted that this was a serious matter the Registrant had expressed remorse and had undertaken remediation, and the Panel had not found impairment on the personal component limb. She reminded the Panel of her previous submissions relating to the cases of Fleishmann and Patel and submitted that there was no requirement that there should be a suspension whilst the Registrant was still subject to his criminal sentence. She submitted that the Panel should impose a sanction based on all the circumstances of the case.

52. She submitted that the Registrant had not been working as a Paramedic since November 2023 and the proceedings had had a significant effect upon him. She submitted that the conduct was isolated and limited and could be marked by a Caution Order as the public interest had already been served by the criminal proceedings. She submitted that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate as there were no clinical concerns and a suspension order in these circumstances would be disproportionate. She submitted that this was a case, when applying paragraph 102 of the Sanctions Policy, in which a Caution Order was appropriate.

53. In the alternative, she submitted that a short suspension, with no review would be sufficient to mark the public interest and could coincide with the end of the Registrant’s driving ban.

Panel’s consideration and decision

54. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel that the full range of sanctions is available to it as this was a case involving a criminal conviction. She advised the Panel that it should bear in mind its duty to protect members of the public and also the public interest which includes maintaining and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, maintaining the reputation of the profession, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it was entitled to take into consideration factors that it considered to be aggravating and mitigating circumstances when deciding what sanction would be sufficient in the public interest.

55. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. She reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. She advised the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the principles in the cases of Fleishmann [Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87] and Patel [Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council (Patel) [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin) The Legal Assessor advised that there was no power to direct no review and that all orders of suspension and conditions would be reviewed automatically before expiry.

56. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had due regard to the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has considered any aggravating and mitigating factors and has borne in mind the principle of proportionality.

57. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors; the Registrant’s carelessness had tragic consequences for his colleagues and members of the public. The carelessness was not momentary and involved inattention coupled with excessive speed. The Panel reminded itself that it had previously found that the Registrant failed in his duty to keep his colleagues and the public safe.

58. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors, the Registrant apologised and admitted responsibility at the earliest opportunity. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s remorse was genuine and that he had meaningful insight into his conduct and the consequences of it. The Panel reminded itself of its earlier findings and it was satisfied that the Registrant had sufficiently remediated his failings and posed a low risk of repetition.

59. However, the Panel was mindful that the Registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence which resulted in loss of life and serious harm. The Panel also took into account the findings it had made in relation to the public component of impairment and in particular the finding that the Registrant’s conviction undermined the trust placed in the profession.

60. The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the criminal offence committed, and the consequences of it this would be inappropriate and inadequate given the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

61. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the Sanctions Policy as to when such an order might be appropriate. The Panel determined that the circumstances of the criminal offence are such that a Caution Order is also not appropriate to meet the public interest concerns identified for the same reason as set out above. The Panel accepted that the incident was isolated, but it did not consider it was limited, either in duration or consequence. The Panel considered that a Caution Order would be appropriate for conduct at the lower end of the scale of seriousness and it did not accept that this was such a case. The Panel considered that it would not be sufficient to uphold proper professional standards and confidence in the profession. The Panel did not accept that this aspect had been adequately addressed by the criminal proceedings.

62. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order and had regard to paragraphs 105 - 117 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has had regard to the fact that there are no clinical concerns with the Registrant’s practice and this matter related to the registrant’s driving. The nature of the criminal offence makes a Conditions of Practice Order inappropriate as a sanction and the Panel had regard to paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy. A Conditions of Practice Order, which focusses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate or relevant to the facts of this case. A restriction to prevent the Registrant driving would be meaningless in these circumstances as the Registrant is already the subject of a driving ban and would be required to take a further test before being able to drive an ambulance in any event.

63. The Panel then considered whether a period of suspension would be a sufficient and proportionate response. It had regard to paragraphs 118-120 of the Sanctions Policy.

64. The Panel bore in mind the findings it had already made and took into account the need to protect the public interest. Notwithstanding the tragic consequences, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remining on the Register. The Panel noted that there was no element of recklessness or malice, and the Registrant had not deliberately set out to hurt anyone. The Registrant had developed extensive insight and demonstrated remediation and remorse. The Panel therefore concluded that a period of suspension would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain a proper degree of confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and to declare and maintain proper standards among fellow professionals.

65. The Panel gave careful consideration to striking the Registrant’s name off the HCPC Register and in particular it considered paragraphs 130-132 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel considered that the Registrant had insight and was otherwise a good paramedic, there was a low risk of repetition, and the Panel considered the public interest would be served by a suspension order.

66. The Panel took into account the impact that an order of suspension would have on the Registrant and noted that although he was not currently working in this role, he had expressed a desire to return, and it would prevent him from doing so whilst the order was in force. Nevertheless, it considered that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, and the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests.

67. The Panel determined that a period of 12 months was the appropriate and proportionate length of the suspension order. This would be adequate to protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and behaviour and reflect the seriousness of the conviction. The Panel considered that the conviction was at the higher end of seriousness and the maximum suspension order was appropriate. The Panel noted that the Registrant will have completed his sentence before this order is due to expire however it considered that 12 months remained the appropriate and proportionate sanction notwithstanding the criminal sentence.

68. This Panel does not seek to fetter the discretion of a future reviewing Panel, but it considers that such a Panel may be assisted by any information which evidences continuing insight. Further, a reviewing Panel may be assisted by evidence of the steps that the Registrant has taken to keep his skills and knowledge up to date and his intentions to return to practice. In addition, a future Panel may be assisted by a reflective piece which addresses the impact the Registrants conviction may have had on public confidence in the profession.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Edward Ezekiel Riding for a period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order:

Application

The Panel considered the application by the HCPC for an Interim Order to cover the appeal period.

The HCPC’s application is made on the 2 statutory grounds as follows:

• it is necessary for the protection of members of the public
• it is otherwise in the public interest.

Ms Herbert on behalf of the Registrant made no submissions.

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being required in the public interest. The Panel did not consider that an Order was necessary to protect the public given the low risk of repetition identified. However, the Panel considered that the public interest in upholding the reputation of the profession would be undermined if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice during any appeal period. The Panel considered that to make any other order would be inconsistent with its earlier decisions and would not reflect the seriousness of the findings it had made relating to impairment. The Panel considered that the period of 18 months was required to cover the likely length of time required for any appeal to be heard and determined.

The Panel noted that such an order may have a detrimental effect on the Registrant however, this was outweighed by the need to protect the public interest.

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 to cover the length of any appeal.

History of Hearings for Edward Ezekiel Riding