Mr Rainer Morgan-Kavanaugh

Preliminary Matters

Service

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

2. The Panel had been provided with the certificate of registration signed by the Registrar dated 29 November 2024. This certificate confirmed the registered email address for the Registrant. The Panel had also been provided with the notice of hearing email dated 29 November 2024 sent to the Registrant at his registered email address. This confirmed the date (7 – 8 January 2025) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that it would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an opportunity to attend the hearing and/or make written submissions and of the Panel’s ability to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

3. The Panel had also been provided with a copy of the email correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPTS Hearing’s Officer, dated 20 December 2024, the content of which is set out below:

“I have indicated previously that I have no intention of engaging any further with this process. There is no real consequence that the HCPC is able to impose that causes me any concern or will actually alter my life in any meaningful way. I do not consider that engaging with this will have any impact on the process at all. However it has the potential to have a significant negative impact on me. This has been going for such a long time that it make an absolute mockery of The HCPC and ots [sic] tribunal process. Indicating that this is a system which actually does not exist for any purpose than to serve itself. It u [sic] does not consider the health or wellbeing of those whom it feels it has the right to pass judgement on. I actually am completely ambivalent to this all now and have no interest in dealing with Blake Morgan or anybody from the HCPC”.

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

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

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

Proceeding in Absence

7. Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

8. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the email correspondence sent by the Registrant to the Hearing’s Officer on 20 December 2024, as set out above. Ms Bernard-Stevenson also drew the Panel’s attention to the email correspondence sent by the Registrant to Blake Morgan LLP, on 13 September 2024, in response to whether he would be attending at an interim hearing on 20 September 2024. The content of the Registrant’s email is set out below:

“Thank you for your email.

I will not be attending the hearing and will not be represented.

I want to state that I have no intention to attend any of the subsequent hearings or any meetings. This has been ongoing since 202 [sic], and with the [Redacted] problems I had prior to this starting and the subsequent difficulties I have experienced. I have decided that in order to protect myself from any worsening of my conditions I do not wish to engage in this process any further than confirming consent to make the process easier for you.

I mean no disrespect however the drawn out nature of theis [sic] process particularly after the crown court hearing has become increasingly more tesious [sic]. Considering that my [Redacted] health was previously disclosed and the problems I have had made clear it feels like it has now become some sort of cruel process which appears to have no end in sight”.

9. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the nature of the email indicates that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. She submitted that it is in the general public interest to progress this case as the conviction dates back to early 2024.

10. Ms Bernard-Steveson submitted that as the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself, it is unlikely that he will attend the hearing if the hearing was re-scheduled to another date. She submitted that if the hearing was adjourned it would likely be a lengthy adjournment due to listing availability and this would cause unnecessary delay.

11. Ms Bernard-Stevenson acknowledged the Registrant is likely to be disadvantaged by the hearing proceeding in his absence. However, she submitted that he has had the opportunity to attend and/or to provide written submissions and he has chosen not to do so. However, he has made limited representations via email which the Panel can consider.

12. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to Rule 11 of the Rules and cases including GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL 5. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated June 2022.

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

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

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

• The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence, and/or make
submissions. However, he has been consistent in his email correspondence with his assertion that he does not want to attend and that the process is impacting on him negatively.

• The Panel considered that it is in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interest for it to proceed with the expeditious disposal of the case.

Background

14. On 4 January 2023, the HCPC received a referral form from NS, a Human Resources Business Partner at South West Ambulance Service (‘the Trust’). In this referral form, NS explained that concerns had arisen regarding the Registrant selling Trust equipment through his personal eBay account.

15. The referral form indicated that the Trust passed the case over to the police, who searched the Registrant’s house and found an ECG schiller machine which was later confirmed to be Trust Equipment.

16. The referral form indicated that the concerns were initially raised on 20 May 2020 by a staff member. The Registrant was suspended by the Trust on 28 June 2021, and he resigned on 23 February 2022.

17. During the HCPC investigation, the HCPC obtained a case summary (MG5.) In the case summary, it states that the total value of the Trust property that had been stolen and/or damaged by the Registrant was £2,996.40. This property consisted of an ECG Machine, a Capnograph, and an Oxygen Cannister.

18. On 27 November 2023, Devon & Cornwall police emailed Blake Morgan LLP to confirm that the Registrant had entered a not guilty plea and that the case had been listed for trial on 29 January 2024.

19. On 19 March 2024, Devon & Cornwall police informed Blake Morgan LLP that the Registrant had entered a guilty plea on 18 January 2024. He was sentenced on 14 March 2024 to the following:

• 2 years custody – suspended for 2 years.

• 200 hours of unpaid work.

• 14 Rehabilitation days.

• [Redacted] treatment requirement.

20. The HCPC has obtained a Certificate of Conviction from Plymouth Crown Court and the transcript of His Honour Judge R Linford’s sentencing remarks.

Submissions

21. The Panel indicted that it would hear submissions on facts, grounds and impairment together rather than retire at each step. The Panel confirmed that if it decided at any of the steps that the matter is not well founded it would not move on to consider the next step.

22. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Bernard-Stevenson in relation to facts, grounds, and impairment.

23. In summary Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted as follows:

• The Panel can rely on the Certificate of Conviction as evidence of the facts and the statutory ground of conviction is established by virtue of the production of the Certificate of Conviction.

• Although, in principle, the conduct is remediable, there is no evidence that the Registrant has successfully remediated. Further, the Registrant has failed to submit a reflective piece demonstrating insight into his conduct.

• The HCPC aims to protect the public and uphold public confidence. The Registrant has been convicted of one count of theft. The facts underlying this conviction involve the Registrant stealing several important items of medical equipment from his employer. The Registrant’s employer was a public body funded by the taxpayer. As a result of stealing these items, the Registrant would have deprived patients and/or staff from using them. Therefore, this conduct is serious, failing to make a finding of impairment on the public component could lead to a diminution in public confidence in the HCPC as the Registrant’s regulator.

• There is no proof that the Registrant has successfully remediated, the Panel cannot be assured that the Registrant will not behave in this way in the future. This factor indicates that the Registrant poses a real risk to members of the public (by depriving them of the use of important medical equipment.).

• The Registrant is still subject to a lengthy term of imprisonment (two years) which has been suspended for two years, which will elapse on or about 16 April 2026. Furthermore, the Registrant’s sentence includes an unpaid work requirement (200 hours) and 14 rehabilitation days.

• In the case of Fleischmann (CRHCP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin)), Newman J held that “where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences, he should not be permitted to resume his practice unrestricted”. Newman J went on to explain that “the rationale for the principle is that good standing in a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained”. Therefore, if this principle was applied to this case, the Panel would have little choice but to conclude that the Registrant is impaired on the public component by virtue of his serious conviction and his unspent sentence.

• A reasonable member of the public who was informed of the details of the case would be shocked and troubled to learn that the Registrant was able to work unrestricted (NH v General Medical Council 2016 EWCA 2348 (Admin)).

• The Registrant’s actions had brought the profession into disrepute, and he acted without integrity.

• Theft is an offence of dishonesty. The Registrant stole Trust property to a value of approximately £3000 which is evidenced in the MG5 and the Judge’s sentencing remarks.

• The Panel should find the Registrant impaired on both the personal and public components.

24. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ (dated September 2024) and ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ (dated November 2023). The Legal Assessor referred to rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and Article 22 (1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Legal Assessor provided the definitions of Theft as set out in the Theft Act 1968. The following case law was also referenced: of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Bolton v Law Society 1993 and PSA v GDC and Patel (2024) EWHC 243.

Decision on Facts

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

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

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

Decision on Grounds

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

29. The Panel took into account that in this case, the Registrant had been convicted, at Plymouth Crown Court, on 18 January 2024, following a guilty plea, of Theft.

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

Decision on Impairment

31. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal component and then from the wider public component. The Panel also had regard to whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

32. In deciding impairment, the Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant (“Grant”). The Panel considered whether:

a. The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.

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

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

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

33. In relation to harm, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct has in the past placed service users at unwarranted risk of harm. Whilst there is no evidence of direct harm, the Panel took into account the sentencing remarks made by His Honour Judge R Linford on 14 March 2024. These state:

“Not at the very earliest stage, but at an early stage of these proceedings, you pleaded guilty to a single count of theft. That single count of theft reflected a terrible betrayal of trust that was reposed in you, you were a paramedic, a really highly qualified person, doing a very high pressure job in appallingly stressful circumstances, of that there can be no doubt. You were a paramedic through the period of the pandemic. But in breach of trust, in savage breach of trust you stole property valued at about £3,000 from the trust. You did it by going into a storeroom at the, or near to the hospital, taking this property and selling or trying to sell it on eBay. It is unforgivable that it was being done at a time when the country needed this equipment more than it ever had”.

34. The Panel considered that the theft, particularly of the Oxygen Cannister, which occurred during the Covid Pandemic, deprived service users of access to that equipment which had the potential to cause harm. The Panel took into account that for an ambulance to be utilised it has to have the correct equipment and theft of such equipment from the store room, has the potential to impact on an ambulance being deployed. In turn this has the potential to cause harm to any service user who requires that medical support. The Panel concluded that whilst there is no evidence of an intention to cause harm, at the very least, the Registrant had a reckless disregard of the impact his actions could have had on service users.

35. In relation to the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of behaviour so as not to bring the paramedic profession into disrepute. The dishonest behaviour and conduct for which the Registrant was convicted does bring the paramedic profession into disrepute.

36. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, which were in effect from January 2016 to 31 August 2024. Standard 9 requires HCPC registered professionals to “Be honest and trustworthy” in their personal and professional behaviour.
Standard 9.1 states:

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

37. The Panel considered that honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of paramedic practice. The Panel concluded that by stealing Trust equipment for his own personal gain, the Registrant had breached the public’s trust and confidence and had breached fundamental tenets of the paramedic profession. The Panel also noticed the sentencing remarks of HHJ Linford which stated:

“That single count of theft reflected a terrible betrayal of trust that was reposed in you…You were a Paramedic through the period of the pandemic. But in breach of trust, in savage breach of trust you stole property valued at about £3,000”.

38. In relation to dishonesty, the Panel determined that the Registrant had in the past acted dishonestly. It noted the wording set out in section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 that:

“A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly”.

39. The Registrant’s dishonest conduct involved him stealing three items of Trust equipment from the store room, with an approximate value of £3000, to sell them for his own personal financial gain. The Panel considered the seriousness of the conduct and determined that it was extremely serious. The Registrant was convicted of Theft, in the Crown Court and received a custodial sentence.

40. The Panel considered the extent to which the misconduct in this case can be, and has been, remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.

41. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as dishonesty may be harder to remediate. However, in certain circumstances such concerns are capable of being remedied providing that sufficient insight, reflection and remediation can be evidenced.

42. The Panel had no evidence before it from the Registrant to indicate any insight. He has not provided any evidence to explain what led to his wrongdoing, nor that what he did was unacceptable. The Registrant has not demonstrated any remorse or provided any evidence that he has reflected on his actions and the impact such actions had on the public, his colleagues, and the paramedic profession.

43. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had not provided any evidence of how he has or would alleviate the serious concerns that his criminal actions raise. His criminal sentence is still live, and he has provided no evidence of whether he is complying with the sentence. The Panel therefore had no evidence of remediation.

44. The Panel considered whether there was a risk of repetition of the Registrant repeating the conduct which resulted in the conviction in this case. Given its finding that the Registrant has provided no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains high. The Panel found that given the lack of insight, there remains a potential for the Registrant to behave dishonestly again.

45. The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

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

47. The Panel was satisfied that, in being convicted of Theft, from his employer, the Registrant had not maintained the HCPC professional standards and had undermined confidence in the paramedic profession. The Registrant’s behaviour involved a gross breach of the trust placed in him as a Paramedic, and it occurred at a time when the country was experiencing the Covid Pandemic and needed medical equipment more than it ever had. His conduct was carried out for his own financial gain with the equipment being valued at approximately £3000.

48. Members of the public are entitled to expect registrants to act with honesty and integrity. The Panel concluded that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be shocked and appalled if there was no finding of impairment in this case.

49. The Panel was satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel was also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the paramedic profession if it did not find that the Registrant's fitness to practise is impaired.

50. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

51. Having found that the Allegation is well-founded and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel was required to consider its powers of sanction, pursuant to Article 29 of the Health Professions Order.

52. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made no positive submission on the matter of appropriate sanction, but outlined for the Panel the principles which she submitted should guide the Panel in its decision making. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’ as the guidance on relevant factors for the Panel to consider.

53. Ms Bernard-Stevenson drew the Panel’s attention to factors which it may consider as aggravating. These included:

• That the conduct of the Registrant was a breach of trust, both between the Registrant and his employer and between the Registrant and service users.

• That the Registrant had been dishonest by virtue of his criminal conviction for Theft.

• Although the Theft was a single conviction, it included the Registrant stealing multiple items.

• The Registrant has shown no insight, or remorse and has not provided an apology.

• The Registrant has not remediated.

• There was potential for service user harm, as found by the Panel at the impairment stage.

54. Ms Bernard-Stevenson acknowledged that the Registrant was not present and that in fairness to him she would draw the Panel’s attention to possible mitigating features. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that it was clear from the Judge’s sentencing remarks that a [Redacted] health report was provided to the criminal court. The Judge notes in the sentencing that the Registrant had been under pressure and stress at the time of the offence.

55. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that another factor which might be considered as mitigating is that the Registrant only stole from his employer, rather than an individual, or from multiple employers/people.

56. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel was referred to the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’. The Legal Assessor advised that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have a punitive effect. Sanctions are imposed only for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining trust and confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding professional standards. The Panel was advised that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the case. The Panel was referred to the case of PSA v NMC and Jalloh (2023) EWHC 3331.

57. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the cases of CHRE v GDC & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and PSA v GDC & Patel [2024] EWHC 243, concerning a Registrant’s return to practice whilst subject to criminal sanction. There is a “general principle” that an individual who had been convicted of a criminal offence should not be permitted to resume practice until he/she had completed their sentence. However, Fleischmann cannot be applied as if it were a rule; both it and the “general principle” derived from the Sanctions Policy must bend to the overarching requirement to impose a sanction which is just, proportionate and only that which is necessary to maintain public confidence.

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

59. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The conviction was for dishonesty involving theft of multiple items, at a time when the country needed medical equipment more than it ever had.

• The conduct in relation to the conviction involved a breach of trust, referred to by HHJ Linford as “a terrible betrayal of trust”. The breach of trust was between the Registrant and the Trust who employed him and from whom he stole property valued at about £3000.

• The conduct in relation to the conviction was an abuse of the Registrant’s professional position. The HCPC ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’ require registrants to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust in them and their profession. This means being honest and trustworthy and acting in the best interests of service users. In acting as he did, the Registrant’s behaviour undermined the public’s trust in him and the paramedic profession.

• The Registrant’s conduct was deliberate and was a financial abuse of trust. He stole property from the Trust for his own financial gain.

• The Registrant has not provided any evidence of insight and has failed to express remorse.

• The Registrant has not provided any evidence of remediation.

• The theft, particularly of the Oxygen Cannister, which occurred during the Covid Pandemic, deprived service users of access to that equipment and as such had the potential to cause harm. For an ambulance to be utilised it has to have the correct equipment and theft of such equipment, has the potential to impact on an ambulance being deployed. In turn this has the potential to cause harm to any service user who requires that medical support.

60. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• The Registrant pleaded guilty to the criminal proceedings. It was noted by the Judge that this was, “Not at the very earliest stage, but at an early stage of these proceedings”.

• Whilst the Panel has no direct evidence in relation to the Registrant’s health it is clear from the Judge’s sentencing remarks that it had an impact on the Registrant’s conduct. HHJ Linford states:

“I have read the Pre-Sentence Report, of course I have, but I have also read the [Redacted] treatment report. I have read references about you, people that know you and people that have spent time with you, all of which speak highly of you. At the time that all this happened you were, as I have said, yourself subject to a great degree of pressure and stress, as were most people who were working in the health system at the time”.

This concern in relation to the Registrant’s [Redacted] health appears to remain a current issue based on the Registrant’s recent correspondence (as set out earlier in this decision) in which he refers in general terms to his ongoing [Redacted] health difficulties.

61. In considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, the Panel had regard to the need to assess the seriousness of the issues raised by the case and specifically referred to the ‘Serious Cases’ section of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel found this was a serious case and it involved dishonesty, abuse of professional position, and a criminal conviction.

62. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It noted that the final sanction should be proportionate and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public and uphold the public interest.

63. Due to the serious nature of the conduct in this case, the Panel considered that referring the case for mediation or taking no further action would be insufficient to protect the public or to uphold the public interest.

64. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the finding of impairment in this case, nor protect the public. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a Caution Order.

65. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel took into account its findings at the impairment stage that the Registrant has not demonstrated any insight and that there remains a high risk of repetition of the conduct leading to the conviction. The Panel was of the view it was not commensurate with the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. It considered that this would not protect the public and that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour was dealt with by a way of a Conditions of Practice Order.

66. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”.

67. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s conviction was for a serious offence of Theft. It involved the Registrant deliberately taking Trust property for his own financial gain. The Panel took into account its earlier findings that the Registrant lacks insight and that the nature of his correspondence and failure to attend the hearing show an unwillingness to resolve matters. It had also found that there is a high risk of repetition of the conduct.

68. Having taken the above factors into account, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order was not the appropriate order in this case. Given the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would be undermined if a Suspension Order was imposed.

69. The Panel next considered a Striking Off Order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort, as set out in paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless acts involving, among other things, dishonesty, abuse of professional position and/or criminal convictions. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conviction fell into these specified categories. It involved a terrible and “savage breach of trust” at a time when the country needed medical equipment more than it ever had. The Panel was satisfied, based on the nature and gravity of the conviction, together with the Registrant’s lack of insight, that a Striking Off Order was necessary to protect the public, uphold the standards for members of the profession, and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

70. The Panel acknowledged that it must weigh the Registrant’s interests with the public interest, when determining sanction. In the current case the Registrant is serving a criminal sentence, but a Striking Off Order may further damage the Registrant’s reputation. Having considered the seriousness of the conviction, together with the Panel’s finding of impairment, the guidance of the Sanctions Policy, and all the circumstances of the case, the Panel was satisfied that the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests, and its sanction decision is appropriate and proportionate.

71. The Panel therefore decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Rainer Morgan-Kavanaugh from the Register from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

72. Ms Bernard-Stevenson 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. Ms Bernard-Stevenson confirmed that the Registrant had been notified of the ability of the Panel to make an Interim Order after imposing a sanction.

73. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that an Interim Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of her submissions that those grounds are satisfied, she relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issue.

Decision

74. 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.

75. Having regard to the Interim Orders Practice Note, the Panel first considered whether it was appropriate to consider the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel took into account that the Notice of Hearing dated 29 November 2024, advised the Registrant that such an application may be made. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was given notice of the ability of the Panel to impose an Interim Order after sanction. The Panel also concluded that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in accordance with its earlier decision on proceeding in absence.

76. In its decision on impairment the Panel decided that there is a high 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 for its substantive sanction decision.

77. 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.

78. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

79. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be 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.

80. 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.

81. 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 Rainer Morgan-Kavanaugh