Timothy Flockhart

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied by the documents in the service bundle that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of today’s hearing by email dated 11 December 2024 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended. Delivery of notice was confirmed by email of the same date.

Proceeding in absence

2. Ms Mosley made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that he had voluntary absented himself from the hearing and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted the email from the HCPC to the Registrant dated 10 January 2025 asking him whether he would attend the final hearing. By his email in response dated 13 January 2025 the Registrant expressed the hope that it would be the final hearing and confirmed that “As I have repeatedly stated I wished to be removed from the register in September 2023”. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and waived his right to attend. In the Panel’s judgement, no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the hearing to a later date, as the Registrant would be unlikely to attend a hearing at a future date. The Panel was satisfied that it was in the public interest, and in the Registrant’s interests, for the hearing to proceed in his absence.

Hearing in private

4. By email to the HCPC dated 22 November 2023, the Registrant requested that the entire hearing take place in private to protect the private life of his family.

5. Ms Mosley opposed the Registrant’s application on the grounds that his conviction was a matter of public record. She acknowledged that if there were to be any reference to the Registrant’s health or private life, such matters should be referred to in private but that she would not be making reference to any such material and the Registrant himself had provided no information relating to his health or private life for consideration by the Panel.

6. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s conviction is a matter of public record. The Panel considered that there was a strong public interest in the hearing taking place in public, so that members of the profession and the wider public would be aware of how the Regulator determined cases of this nature. The Registrant had provided no material for the Panel’s consideration which required privacy. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the entire hearing should take place in public.

Background

7. The Registrant is an HCPC registered Paramedic, previously employed by South West Ambulance Service Trust (“SWAST”).

8. On 16 June 2022, the Registrant referred himself to the HCPC as he was under criminal investigation for possessing/ showing/ distributing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child. The National Crime Agency investigations started on 21 April 2022.

9. On 13 July 2022, SWAST confirmed that the Registrant had been suspended pending the police investigation.

10. On 17 May 2023, the Registrant was dismissed from his role at SWAST.

11. On 3 October 2023, the Registrant pleaded guilty at Exeter Crown Court to three counts charging him with: Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child x3’.

12. He was sentenced as follows:

a. 18-month Community Order

b. 140 hours of unpaid work;

c.20 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement;

d. £425 costs;

e. Placed on the Sexual Offenders Register for 5 years;

f. Subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years;

g. Notification to the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Decision on facts and grounds

13. Rule 10(1)(d), sets out that where a Registrant is 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 The Panel was satisfied by the copy of the certificate of conviction that the facts set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation were proved.

Decision on Impairment

14. The Panel took into account the written submissions of Ms Mosley to the effect that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired having regard to both personal and public components of impairment.

15. The Panel applied the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The Panel noted that by reason of the offences of which he was convicted the Registrant was in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), which states that “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust in you and your profession”’.

17. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the personal and public components respectively. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Paramedic, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The public component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

18. With regard to the personal element of impairment, the Panel noted that the Registrant had pleaded guilty to the offences. The sentencing judge commented upon his positive good character and pronounced herself impressed by the references submitted to the court. The Panel also noted from the Judge’s sentencing remarks that the Probation Services had assessed the Registrant as being at a low risk of re-offending.

19. The Panel noted that the offences of which the Registrant was convicted were committed outside his work.

20. However, the Panel considered the following matters were indicative of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being impaired with regard to the personal component:

• The Registrant had not engaged with HCPC in these proceedings, except to assert repeatedly that he wished to be removed from the Register;

• He had demonstrated no insight with regard to the commission of these very serious offences;

• He had provided no evidence of remediation;

• In all the circumstances, there remained, in the Panel’s judgement, a risk of repetition.

21. In light of the above matter, the Panel considered the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired with regard to the personal component.

22. With regard to the public component, the Panel considered the Registrant to present a risk to the public, having regard to the very serious nature of his offences, which involved the exploitation of children for the purpose of sexual gratification. The Panel noted that the indecent images of children recovered by the police amounted to a total of 106 in category A (particularly serious), 69 in category B and 85 in category C.

23. The Panel also took into account the responsibility of the HCPC to uphold proper standards of conduct on the part of members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that, given the serious nature of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted, public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Paramedic is impaired by reason of his conviction.

Decision on Sanction

24. The Panel carefully considered the written submissions by Ms Mosley. She did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction but drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy concerning offences relating to indecent images of children.

25. The Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest by declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct on the part of registrants and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.

26. The mitigating factors are that:

• the Registrant made admissions to the offences at the first opportunity and pleaded guilty at the Crown Court;

• the Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks, referred to above, and the reference to the Registrant having expressed remorse for his misconduct;

• the Panel also noted the Judge’s reference to the fact that the Probation Services deemed the Registrant’s risk of re-offending to be low.

27. Set against the mitigating factors referred to above, the Panel noted and endorsed the following guidance at paragraph 89 of the Sanctions Guidance:

“Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction”.

28. The Registrant’s conviction is too serious for the Panel to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order.

29. The Panel considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate but noted paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:

“Conditions are … less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving…..sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children.”

30. The Panel was unable to formulate conditions of practice which would be relevant or appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted. In any event, the Registrant has consistently stated that he has no intention of returning to practice and wishes to be removed from the Register. By his email to the HCPC dated 22 November 2023, the Registrant stated that “I wish to confirm that I have no intention to work in the healthcare professions in any form in the future”. In his latest email to the HCPC dated 13 January 2025, the Registrant confirmed that “As I have repeatedly stated I wish to be removed from the register …”.

31. The Panel considered the criteria for imposing a Suspension Order but concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the Register.

32. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving …. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children”.

33. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process”.

34. The Panel was drawn to the conclusion that the only appropriate sanction was a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Timothy Flockhart from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Ms Mosley made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.

2. The Panel noted Ms Mosley’s submissions and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. Given the Panel’s finding that the offences of which the Registrant was convicted are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.

4. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary for the protection of members of the public and otherwise in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.

5. 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.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Timothy Flockhart