Matthew Burns

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) provide at paragraph 3(1)(b) that Notice may be served on a registrant by posting it to their address as it appears in the register or sending it to an electronic mail address provided by the registrant for communications. Paragraph 6(2) of the Rules confirms that at least 28 days’ notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant.

2. The Panel reviewed a 12-page Service Bundle which contained a Notice of Hearing, sent to the Registrant on 22 May 2025 via email at 10:03. The notice of hearing informed the Registrant: (i) of the date and time of this hearing; (ii) that it was to be the substantive hearing of the allegations brought against him by the HCPC; and (iii) that it was to be conducted virtually. The Panel was also provided with an extract of the Register showing the contact details provided by the Registrant and held by the HCPC. It received legal advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied, and was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note Service of Documents.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been duly served upon the Registrant via his email address more than 28 days before the hearing. It was therefore content that the HCPC had discharged its duty to ensure that the Registrant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before it and be heard, as set out at Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the Order’). In these circumstances, the Panel determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

4. The Presenting Officer applied to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant, and referred to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, where the Court of Appeal made it clear that registrants have a responsibility to engage with their regulator both in relation to any investigation concerning them and in the resolution of any proceedings against them.

5. The Presenting Officer submitted that there is a public interest in cases being conducted expeditiously. He also referred to there being a public interest in witnesses giving their evidence within a reasonable time of the alleged events.

6. In the Presenting Officer’s submission, the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing in an email of 29 April 2025 at 15:23 in which he stated “hello can you just take me off the register i wont be coming back to work” [sic] when responding to an email sent by the HCPTS to the Registrant at his registered email address informing him of the provisional dates for the final hearing in his case. The Registrant had not responded to two further emails from the Hearings Officer providing information about the hearing and the Microsoft Teams link for the hearing.

7. There had been no application by the Registrant for an adjournment, and the Presenting Officer submitted that it would be speculative to adjourn the hearing to give the Registrant an opportunity to attend, given the intention expressed via email on 29 April 2025.

8. The Presenting Officer accepted that there would be some disadvantage to the Registrant if the case proceeded in his absence but submitted that this was outweighed by the public interest in the case proceeding given the public protection issues involved.

9. The Panel received and accepted legal advice and had regard to the various factors set out in the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.

10. The Panel is satisfied that the HCPC has taken reasonable steps to inform the Registrant of the hearing in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Rules. The Notice of Hearing, dated 22 May 2025, sets out the date and time of the hearing and that it will be conducted virtually. Importantly, the Notice also informs the Registrant that the hearing might proceed in his absence and provides him with a link to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.

11. No application for an adjournment has been received, and the Registrant has not requested to be represented in these proceedings. The Panel is therefore satisfied that an adjournment of the hearing at this late stage would be unlikely to secure the future attendance of the Registrant and would therefore serve no useful purpose, given the Registrant’s stated position as set out in his email of 29 April 2025 and his apparent failure to meaningfully engage with the regulatory process throughout. It concludes that the Registrant has deliberately and voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, thereby waiving his right to attend or be represented.

12. In reaching its decision, the Panel has balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the wider public interest in having the proceedings resolved expeditiously. The Panel is aware that the HCPC has six witnesses who are available to attend the hearing and give evidence about matters which allegedly occurred in 2020 and 2021. An adjournment at this stage would be a serious inconvenience to the witnesses and might further impact on their memories of the events about which they are to give evidence.

13. The Panel accepts that there will be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present or participating in the hearing but considers that this is outweighed by the public interest in proceedings being heard when scheduled. The Panel will be careful to consider all matters which are in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings and test the HCPC’s case.

14. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Application to amend the Allegation

15. The Presenting Officer applied to amend Particular 7b) of the Allegation by removing the words “10 v4. March” which have no bearing on the matter alleged in that sub-particular and appear to be a typographical error.

16. The Panel received and accepted legal advice in relation to the application to amend. It considered whether the proposed amendment prejudices the Registrant or causes any unfairness in the hearing, particularly given that the Registrant has not been given prior notice of the proposed amendment. It was satisfied that the proposed amendment is minor with the intention of correcting an obvious typographical error. The Panel did not consider that the proposal affects the substance of the case alleged against the Registrant, prejudice him or cause any unfairness in the proceedings, but rather was an appropriate use of its case management powers to ensure that the allegation is fit for purpose. Accordingly, it granted the application to amend as requested.

Background

17. The Registrant is a registered HCPC Paramedic. Between June 2020 and 7 October 2020, the Registrant worked as a self-employed Paramedic at Wealden Ambulance Service (“WAS”), a family run business providing patient transfers and medical cover for events. He was employed on a zero hour contract. On 27 August 2020, the Registrant took on the role of Events Manager and Clinical Lead at WAS.

18. From 14 August 2020, the Registrant provided paramedic services to Elite EMS, initially as an employee and then on a self-employed service contract. Elite EMS operates as a third-party provider of ambulance resources to support the operations of the Southeast Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“SECAMB”). The Registrant was based at Elite EMS’s depot in Greys, Essex.

19. The Registrant was dismissed by WAS from the Events Manger and Clinical Lead role via email on 2 October 2020 with the Managing Director of WAS, witness JA, having concerns about the Registrant’s performance.

20. WAS referred the Registrant to the HCPC at the suggestion of the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’), raising concerns which included:

a. Falling asleep at a cricket match;

b. Making inappropriate sexual passes to female colleagues, which were alleged to be mostly offensive and extremely rude;

c. Driving an ambulance under blue lights without having the authorisation to do so, where the patient was not unwell enough to warrant use.

21. On 20 October 2021, the Registrant was suspended from booking any further shifts with Elite EMS pending an investigation into concerns which included:

a. administering IV Glucose to a patient when not required on 17 October 2021;

b. behaving in an aggressive manner towards another healthcare professional on 18 October 2021.

22. Elite EMS referred the Registrant to the HCPC on 22 October 2021 and concluded its investigation into the concerns on 22 July 2022.

23. On 7 October 2024 a panel of the Investigating Committee (“ICP”) found there was a case for the Registrant to answer and referred an Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee for final hearing.

Decision on the facts

Evidence

24. The Panel was provided with a bundle of documents (totalling 160 pdf pages, some of which were redacted) by the HCPC, which, in addition to witness statements from the HCPC witnesses, included several exhibits:

a. the WAS handbrake rule document (redacted copy);

b. the Registrant’s CV (undated) and Events Manager and Clinical Lead job offer from WAS (27 August 2020);

c. email from WAS to the Registrant terminating his employment as Events Manager and Clinical Lead (2 October 2020).

d. Elite EMS Patient Care Report (‘PCR’) 0576 (17 October 2021);

e. Incident report form (17 October 2021);

f. Elite EMS Investigation report (22 July 2022);

g. Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (“JRCALC”) Glycaemic emergencies;

h. JRCALC guidelines IV glucose.

25. During the evidence of witness JA, two further documents were provided:

a. An unredacted copy of the WAS handbrake rule document relating to the relevant incident on 17 September 2020;

b. A redacted screenshot of the WAS Ambulance Patient Booking Form for the patient shown on the handbrake rule document for 17 September 2020.

Witness evidence

26. The Panel heard evidence from six witnesses called by the HCPC and admitted the evidence of a seventh witness as hearsay evidence.

Colleague A

27. Colleague A started her employment with WAS in September 2020. Her initial role was as an Administration Manager. Since December 2021, Colleague A has been employed as a Registered Manager. Her responsibilities include looking after the staff and vehicles, responding to complaints and safeguarding issues and making sure the company runs smoothly.

28. Colleague A told the Panel that she knew the Registrant professionally as a co-worker at WAS and that they had worked together for approximately four months on an ad hoc basis. Colleague A recalled working on two events with the Registrant, but she had never worked on a shift with him. The two events were a high-risk motor cross event and a cricket match. The former required two paramedics in attendance whilst at the latter the Registrant was the sole paramedic lead.

29. Colleague A said that she had been driving home at about 16:30 on 17 September 2020 on the A27 from Brighton towards Eastbourne when she had seen the Registrant driving a WAS ambulance with blue lights on. [Redacted]. She said that she knew the route from Brighton to Eastbourne as she drove it regularly at all times of the day. Colleague A said she had spotted the ambulance was using blue lights from about four to five cars away as she was driving on the A27 into Polegate, and the ambulance was coming in the opposite direction. She said she recognised the Registrant in the driving seat of the ambulance.

30. Colleague A said she immediately called Witness JA to ask if the Registrant had permission or a reason to drive with blue lights on. JA had told her that the Registrant did not.

31. Colleague A told the Panel that the company used a “Handbrake Rule” document, completed by crews when they work for WAS. This document sets out the crew and patient details, arrival and departure time of pick up and drop offs and the location of the crew. Colleague A said that WAS uses this document to see how long it takes to do a job for invoice purposes. It is completed by the person with the patient, and it is kept in a file with other relevant paperwork. Upon checking the document completed by the Registrant for 17 September 2020, Colleague A identified that the Registrant left Eastbourne District General Hospital at 16:47 and arrived at the Royal Sussex Hospital at 17:22. Colleague A told the Panel that the journey between the two hospitals normally took approximately 40-50 minutes with no traffic, but in this case had been completed, in rush hour, in 35 minutes. She confirmed that the timings on the handbrake rule document matched the time she had seen the ambulance on the A27.

32. The handbrake rule document showed that there was a crew mate, MO-T and a patient in the back of the ambulance. The patient was a 29-year-old who needed a blood transfusion after a kidney transplant. Colleague A said that this was not a valid reason for driving with blue lights on. She explained that to drive with blue lights on, the Registrant should have first sought approval from JA. JA would have only approved the use of blue lights if there was a valid reason for them such as an emergency for life or death. Colleague A said that all Paramedics were informed of this when they joined WAS.

33. Colleague A also told the Panel of an occasion which occurred on a date she could not recall, when she and a co-worker, DL, had stopped in an ambulance at a service station. The Registrant was also at the service station in uniform but driving a personal vehicle. Colleague A explained that the ambulance was a Renault Master which is quite a big vehicle. While she was sitting in the passenger side of the ambulance with the door open, the Registrant came to talk to them. Colleague A explained that this was not an uncommon occurrence. She recalled the Registrant mentioning some personal matters concerning his father. She said at some point while the Registrant was stood outside the ambulance, he had started talking about wanting to buy some black trousers. Colleague A said she was wearing black trousers at the time and the Registrant had asked where he could get some. She said that the Registrant had then started to rub her quite high up on her leg with his hand. This was between her knee and her hip. Colleague A said that this had made her feel uncomfortable and she had “shuffled away” as far as she was able to within the confines of the seat. Colleague A said that the Registrant had also moved closer into the ambulance and was towering over her. She said it had looked like he was getting into the ambulance. Colleague A said that although her co-worker that day had commented on the Registrant’s behaviour towards her, saying it was “a bit weird” after they had left the service station, she had not reported the Registrant’s behaviour. Colleague A said that the Registrant had been talking to them for about 20 minutes.

34. Colleague A was now unable to recall the detail contained in her witness statement in respect of the Registrant asking his colleagues “do you know of any younger staff that would fuck me”. However, she confirmed that the Registrant would ask “if anyone would fuck [Person A]”, explaining that the Registrant would say this out of any context such as when he met new staff and was introduced to them.

35. In answer to Panel questions, Colleague A said that the ambulance being driven on blue lights was an ex-SECAMB box Mercedes ambulance which still had the livery of an ambulance and the WAS logo on it. She said that she knew all the WAS ambulance number plates and confirmed that it was the Registrant who had been driving the ambulance with blue lights on. Colleague A said that she could do the journey taken by the ambulance on clear roads in about 45 minutes. Colleague A explained that she had first mentioned the blue light incident to the HCPC when she was asked if there was anything else of concern about the Registrant.

36. In respect of the incident in the service station, Colleague A could not recall when during the 20-minutes the Registrant was chatting to her and her colleague he had talked about buying black trousers. She could not recall what they had spoken about. She said that the Registrant was stood next to her at the passenger side of the ambulance for the whole of the time he was talking to them. Colleague A did not think that he had touched her at the end of the 20-minute chat so it must have been at the beginning or in the middle. Colleague A said that she recalled being a “bit shocked” because the Registrant had touched her so high up on her leg. She demonstrated to the Panel, using her top, how the Registrant had touched her leg. Colleague A confirmed she had not said anything to the Registrant about this. She said that her body language had shown her colleague that she was not comfortable, and she would like to think that the Registrant would have noticed this too. Colleague A said she had turned away from him with only the top half of her body because of the bucket type seat on which she was sitting. Not long after they left the service station, her colleague had said that he did not feel comfortable. Colleague A understood that this must have related to how her colleague had seen her move and the way the Registrant had touched her on her leg, as there was nothing else that had happened that “was not right”.

37. Colleague A said that she had not raised the matter with anyone at the time and she believed that the first time she was asked about it was after the Registrant had been reported to the HCPC and the HCPC had asked if there were any other incidents involving the Registrant. This was sometime after the incident itself. The incident made her feel uncomfortable because she had not known the Registrant for very long. She said that the Registrant had not said anything of a suggestive nature, just “where can I buy these?”. Colleague A said that she had described the Registrant as looking as if he was getting into the ambulance because he was leaning in and had physically passed the threshold.

38. While Colleague A was in the “fairly small” WAS office with a male colleague waiting for a call, the Registrant came back from an event. It was his first encounter with her colleague and the Registrant produced a photo of [Person A] and asked the colleague, “would you fuck her”. Colleague A said that these were the Registrant’s exact words. Colleague A did not recall the Registrant saying anything else and did not remember him saying anything about other younger staff on this or any other occasion.

39. The Panel found Colleague A to be a straightforward witness who was confident to admit if she could not recall the events covered in her statement. The Panel was satisfied that her inability to recall certain events was likely to be due to the passage of time as nearly 5 years have elapsed since the incidents in respect of which she gave evidence.

JA

40. Witness JA is the Managing Director of WAS, which she founded in 2007. WAS is a family run business which holds a Home Office drug licence. It provides medical cover for events and does patient and paramedic transfers. She told the Panel that, following a CQC inspection on 8 December 2020, the business WAS undertook was limited for a period of time. JA said that she was responsible for the day to day running of the business which included taking bookings for patient and Paramedic transfers, sorting out the drugs that WAS holds, looking into care plans and ensuring that they have the right staff and supplies. JA said she was also responsible for recruitment, staff payroll and implementing all policies and procedures.

41. The Registrant was recommended to JA by a friend who worked as a personal assistant to the Chief Executive at East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. JA held an informal interview with her colleague and the Registrant, during which the discussed his 20 years of frontline experience as a Paramedic. She thought he knew what he was talking about when asked questions about being a paramedic, and had produced a CV, which JA exhibited to the Panel.

42. JA said that the Registrant worked for WAS between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 as a self-employed Paramedic on a zero hour contract. This meant that he worked when necessary. She said the Registrant had made a good first impression when he started working for WAS and that he was “nice” and “friendly”. JA said that on 27 August 2020, the Registrant took on the role of Events Manager and Clinical Lead. In the Events Manager role, the Registrant worked 11.5 hours a week and his responsibilities included being an event duty officer, a medicine manager and overviewing policies. The Registrant was also responsible for event planning and execution.

43. JA explained that for the role of Clinical Lead she expected someone to have around 15 years of frontline experience as a Paramedic along with some management experience. This was so that they can support patients and staff correctly.

44. JA confirmed that the Registrant did not undergo any training whilst at WAS. This was because when he had applied for the role and during his interview, the Registrant had stated that he had been a Paramedic for more than twenty years so they had not thought that training would be necessary. JA explained that it was company policy to destroy documents six months after a person stops working for WAS. Therefore, the Registrant’s application form was no longer available, and no notes were taken during the informal interview.

45. JA confirmed that Colleague A told her on 17 September 2020 that she had seen the Registrant at approximately 17:00 driving an ambulance with blue lights on. JA told the Panel that she did not allow any member of staff to have blue lights on while the ambulance was in motion. She permitted them to use the blue lights if the vehicle was stationary at an accident or a broken down vehicle. JA said that during induction of new staff at WAS, she is very clear about not using blue lights. JA explained that if the Registrant had a clinical need, such as a life-or-death situation, to have his blue lights on, he should have called her and given her a valid reason so that she could approve the use of blue lights. JA said that as the Registrant was the Clinical Lead, if he needed to drive with blue lights, this would have meant that the patient was critical. In this case, his fellow crew member, MO-T, should have been driving the ambulance and the Registrant, as the more experienced medical professional, should have been in the back of the ambulance with the patient. JA told the Panel that she would not accept an urgent job and therefore did not have insurance to use blue lights.

46. If blue lights were used, JA said that she would expect to be told so that it could be documented appropriately in the patient incident form. JA did not know how long the Registrant had had his blue lights on but confirmed that the handbrake rule document, showed that the Registrant had driven between two hospitals in 35 minutes during rush hour and that in normal traffic, this journey should take approximately 50 minutes. JA explained that the timings given on the handbrake rule document relate to the times the handbrake is applied on arrival at a hospital and then taken off on departure. It allows WAS to keep track of the timings of journeys for invoicing reasons. It would be filled in by one of the crew, either the Registrant or MO-T. The reference on the document “itv 60 plate” indicates the ambulance being used. JA said that at the end of the day, the handbrake rule forms were returned to her. JA told the Panel that there were also separate patient forms. She confirmed that there was no dual carriageway between Eastbourne and Brighton and so this rush hour journey could not be done in the time set out in the handbrake rule form other than by using the blue lights.

47. JA said that the Registrant was meant to return the patient back to Eastbourne District General Hospital after the dialysis was completed. However, the Registrant told staff on arrival at Royal Sussex Hospital that he was not returning as he thought it was the end of his shift. JA said she was made aware of this by a phone call to her from his crew member, MO-T, after the Registrant had left the hospital. MO-T had been very embarrassed with the way the Registrant had spoken to the nurse. JA said she had not spoken to the Registrant about this incident as she had felt it was an unnecessary conflict.

48. After the Registrant left the employment of WAS, JA told the Panel that a passing conversation with SB, the Matchday Safety Officer at Sussex Cricket Ground, informed her of the Registrant sleeping whilst working at a cricket match. No action was taken in relation to this incident as the Registrant was no longer employed by WAS. JA said that she had not witnessed the event or been informed by SB at the time, but it cropped up after the end of the cricket season when WAS’s contract with Sussex Cricket Limited was under review.

49. JA could not recall the date of the incident, but it was when the Registrant was working a shift at Sussex Cricket Ground. This was the 10:00 to 19:00 shift with breaks when the cricket players had their breaks. SB reported to JA that whilst on duty the Registrant had not responded to a call on his radio and SB had found him asleep on the bed in the match-day safety room. His crewmate was asleep on a stretcher in the ambulance. JA confirmed that Paramedics were not allowed to sleep on duty as they are required to respond immediately to any injuries. JA said this was an unwritten rule that the Registrant would have been told about.

50. Once the Registrant left WAS, JA said that multiple members of staff reported him making inappropriate sexual comments to female staff. She said that as this behaviour had been reported to her in general conversations after the Registrant had left, she had not made any record of it. She confirmed that the Registrant had not made such comments in front of her, other than when he showed a photograph of Person A to members of staff asking, “would you fuck her?”. JA said that this had been in the office and that other people had been around at the time.

51. JA explained to the Panel that WAS did not conduct a disciplinary investigation into the Registrant as most of the concerns came to light once his employment ended.

52. In answer to Panel questions, JA said WAS referred the Registrant to the HCPC after it had been raised during the CQC inspection of WAS. JA said she had been reluctant to make a referral as she did not want any more issues with the Registrant. The WAS female staff had been pleased when the Registrant had left. JA said that at the time, there was no whistleblower policy in place but there was now. JA said that she would not raise issues with the Registrant because she was alone and she found the Registrant to be very patronising and demeaning. JA accepted that she was the Managing Director but said that the Registrant was “a bloke”. She confirmed that WAS had not had robust employment and HR procedures in place at the time the Registrant was employed but did now.

53. JA said that a lot of what the Registrant said was “jokey” and attention seeking. When he made comments such as about Person A, she said she just changed the subject as this way of talking was his “norm” – he was very good at using swear words. She had not corrected him. The photo was a normal profile photo on a phone, and she saw him showing the photo and making the comment on a couple occasions. After the Registrant left, new staff members told her he had shown this to them. JA said that a lot of what the Registrant said was in jest, so she had not thought it necessary to take any action.

54. When asked about how she knew the identity of the patient on the handbrake rule document, JA offered to obtain an unredacted copy and a copy of the relevant patient hospital booking form. The Panel permitted a short adjournment for these documents to be obtained and observed that the patient on 17 September 2020 had been a renal patient. JA said that the entries on the forms could have been written by either the Registrant or MO-T. JA said that if the patient had needed urgent transfer to hospital, this transfer would not have been by WAS but by a frontline 999 crew. JA said that she would have turned down such a transfer. JA also said that if the transfer of the patient had become urgent on route to the hospital, this would be reflected in the notes, and it was not. JA said that this would still be a 999 call as the WAS ambulance crew would have nothing on board such as a drugs kit which might be needed to treat the patient.

55. JA said that as regards induction when the Registrant first worked for WAS, the Registrant would have had access to all policies and procedures through his log on to their 365 system. She said that when he was appointed Clinical Lead it was part of his responsibilities to update the policies and procedures, but she did not think that the Registrant had looked at any of them. JA said that she was not sure when it had been put on the system but there was information on there that WAS did not use blue lights. JA referred to a handbook that was updated in September 2019, prior to the Registrant joining WAS. This referred to the use of blue lights at the scene of a road traffic accident. JA said that 15 members of staff had received the handbook and that the Registrant had access to it. JA also said that updates to any WAS policies and procedures were placed in the front of the forms handed to drivers, who had to sign for them.

56. JA confirmed that the Registrant had never had a formal induction, or any training at WAS but he had access to documents that would have told him about the WAS blue light policy.

Hearsay application

57. The Presenting Officer applied for the evidence of SB, who was the Match Day Safety Officer for Sussex Cricket Limited and whose evidence relates to Particular 5, to be adduced as hearsay evidence. SB had made a witness statement dated 1 July 2023 in which he had stated that he was willing to assist the HCPC by providing a witness statement and that he was willing to attend a final hearing and give evidence “if required to do so”. The grounds for the application were set out in a written skeleton argument supported by oral submissions. The Presenting Officer accepted that SB’s evidence was the sole and decisive evidence in respect of Particular 5.

58. When referring to the reason for SB’s non-attendance, the Presenting Officer asked for any references to SB’s health to be heard in private and the Panel agreed to this to protect SB’s private life. The Presenting Officer referred the Panel to an email dated 17 July 2025 sent by SB to the Hearings Officer in which he set out three reasons for not attending the hearing:

a. he did not want to be a part of the proceedings;

b. he would be working at the time he was due to give evidence; and

c. [Redacted].

Because of the health issues identified, the HCPC determined that it would be inappropriate to apply for a witness summons.

59. The Presenting Officer accepted that usually a hearsay application would be addressed in a preliminary hearing, but he submitted that there had been no time to organise such a hearing as it was only on 17 July 2025 that the HCPC had become aware of SB’s reluctance to attend to give evidence. He referred the Panel to paragraphs 31 to 39 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Evidence and to the principles set there which derive from the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin).

60. Although SB’s evidence was the sole and decisive evidence of Particular 5, any unfairness to the Registrant in admitting SB’s statement as hearsay evidence could be mitigated by the Panel when deciding what weight to give to it. The Presenting Officer submitted that SB’s evidence was demonstrably reliable. He referred to there being a level of consistency from SB’s initial email to the HCPC in 2022 to his witness statement dated 1 July 2023, although he conceded that SB could not give a date or a time for the incident other than that it was in the summer of 2020. There was no indication of any motivation for SB to fabricate his evidence.

61. The Presenting Officer submitted that there was a good reason for SB not attending to give evidence and that the HCPC had a good reason for not taking any further steps to secure his attendance given the late notice and its conclusion that it would be inappropriate [Redacted].

62. At the invitation of the Panel, the Presenting Officer confirmed that SB had been spoken to by the HCPC’s external lawyer on 9 October 2024 to inform SB that a panel of the Investigating Committee had referred an allegation against the Registrant for a hearing. SB had been contacted by email on 3 April 2025 to ask for his availability for a final hearing. On 4 April 2025, SB had responded to say that he could not give dates to avoid because of the nature of his work and suggesting that it would be best to arrange the hearing and he would try to fit around this. On 16 April 2025, SB was emailed with provisional dates for this hearing. At no time in this correspondence was there any suggestion of SB having any difficulties in attending to give evidence.

Decision

63. The Panel received and accepted legal advice in relation to the hearsay application. It decided to admit the statement of SB as hearsay evidence. In reaching its decision, the Panel reviewed the evidence, which relates to matters which were within SB’s role with Sussex Cricket Limited. It was mindful that SB is the sole and decisive witness to the matter alleged in Particular 5.

64. The Panel is satisfied that there is no reason or motive for SB to fabricate his evidence. The Panel takes the view that it is likely therefore to be reliable evidence even though it is not contemporaneous evidence. The Panel notes that in an email to the HCPC dated 24 October 2022, SB has provided a detailed account of the events of the alleged incident which is consistent with his later witness statement. It was satisfied that there is a good and cogent reason for SB’s unavailability. [Redacted].

65. The Panel carefully considered the potential impact on the Registrant were Particular 5 ultimately to be found proved, noting that an allegation that a Paramedic was asleep whilst on duty is serious. It was also mindful that the Registrant was not on notice of the application and was unable to respond to the same due to his own non-attendance at the hearing.

66. There are safeguards which could mitigate against any unfairness to the Registrant in admitting SB’s evidence as the Panel can test the evidence and determine what weight to attach to it. Had SB attended, his evidence would not have been tested by cross-examination in any event as the Registrant is neither present nor represented at this hearing. However, where there are matters the Panel might have wished to be clarified or explained, it would be able to reflect this absence of clarification by the weight, if any, it attaches to SB’s evidence. The Panel will always have in mind that it is for the HCPC to prove its case and that there is no burden of proof on the Registrant. The application was therefore granted.

SB

67. The witness statement of SB confirmed that as the Match Day Safety Officer for Sussex Cricket Limited, SB’s responsibilities included the safety of all attending a match. He did this by liaising with all partners and agencies to ensure that there is necessary support and services available to keep players and spectators safe. SB first met the Registrant in 2020 when he was covering a cricket match. The Registrant had seemed friendly and helpful and had even assisted the stewards with Covid checks, which was outside the scope of his responsibilities.

68. SB said that, on a date he could not recall during the summer of 2020, the Registrant was working a cricket match at Sussex Cricket Club for a four-day County Championship match. The match took place during the Covid pandemic, but SB could not remember if there were any spectators present. He said the Registrant worked from 09:00 to approximately 18:30 each day. SB explained that Sussex Cricket Club has a first aid room situated in the south stand. This room contains basic equipment required for the medical team and a bed for patients, if necessary. The Registrant arrived at 09:00 with an ambulance and parked it near the first aid room. The Registrant was the only Paramedic on the grounds, and he came with a crew member whose name SB could not recall.

69. SB said that during the afternoon, he had gone to the first aid room to find the Registrant, as this would be where he was situated. SB noticed that the door was closed. SB said he had last seen the Registrant when he arrived at 09:00. He said it was unusual for the door to be closed as the Registrant and his colleague were often in and out of the room and that stewards used the room as well. SB checked whether the Registrant was at the front entrance, as he would often chat with the stewards, but could not find him. SB went back to the first aid room and opened the door. He said that there were no lights on in the room. He said that it was necessary to have lights on in the room as there was limited natural light. SB said he noticed someone asleep on the bed. The Registrant had immediately stirred and jumped up. SB could not recall the exact conversation he had with the Registrant but did confirm that the Registrant admitted being asleep, and said his colleague was sleeping in the ambulance.

70. SB said that this could have created a serious situation should an emergency have occurred where an immediate response was required. He expected the Registrant to deal with injuries to players that are deemed serious enough to require them to leave the pitch as well as anything from trips to heart attacks from spectators. SB said that the Registrant would need to respond extremely quickly to any incident and should be stationed within the first aid room, ready to respond. He was surprised the Registrant had been asleep during a cricket match and that he had not taken any immediate action as the Registrant had been so eager to help in other ways. SB told JA of WAS about the incident in a passing conversation some time later – the Registrant had worked as a Paramedic at Sussex Cricket Club on a few more occasions after this incident without any further issues.

RS

71. RS was employed at Elite EMS (“Elite”) as an Emergency Care Support Worker (“ECSW”) between July 2021 and April 2023. She is not registered with the HCPC. Her responsibilities included assisting lead clinicians with any interventions or treatment they deem appropriate and necessary for a patient and being able to recognise a deteriorating patient. RS told the Panel that she was not aware of the Registrant prior to working with him on 17 and 18 October 2021. The night shifts began at 19:30 and ended at 07:30 the following day. After working these two shifts with the Registrant she had asked not to work with him again. On both shifts, the Registrant was the lead paramedic as RS was not registered in her ECSW role.

72. RS told the Panel that on 17 October 2021, she and the Registrant had gone to a patient, whose name she did not recall due to the time that has passed since the incident. The patient had fallen from their bed, which was in the living room, but was fully alert when they arrived. He had slightly slurred speech and residual weakness from a previous stroke, which he and his wife confirmed the existence of. RS told the Panel that she did not know if the patient was diabetic or not but completed a blood sugar reading owing to the patient’s slurred speech. This was in line with protocol and revealed that the blood sugar level was 3.9mmols, which is low. However, as the patient did not have any hypoglycaemic symptoms, she suggested to the Registrant that they made something for the patient to eat as this could raise their blood sugar level to a normal level. In answer to Panel questions, RS said that the patient had rolled out of bed and his wife could not lift him up. She considered it a non-injury fall, and no acute injury had been found. The patient could speak quite clearly, he was orientated, aware and able to give consent. RS said that they were not told of any swallowing issues.

73. The Registrant told RS not to make any food for the patient as he would canulate the patient and give the patient IV glucose in the back of the ambulance. RS said that her experience was that patients presenting with low blood sugar and similar symptoms would normally be given quick acting carbohydrates or Glucose Gel. The blood sugar levels would then be re-tested periodically until a normal reading of over 4mmols. Only after three failed attempts at getting the patient’s blood sugar levels over 4mmols should IV glucose be considered in her opinion, unless the patient was clearly unwell, which this patient was not. This is because IV glucose could cause harm to the patient. RS exhibited the relevant JRCALC guideline for glucose, saying that the JRCALC guidelines were like the paramedics’ “bible”. RS said that a blood sugar reading of 3.8 was a minimal reading as a reading over 4 was normal; the patient could have eaten something to raise his blood sugars.

74. When the Registrant said he would give IV glucose, RS described offering to get the drugs bag from the ambulance as IV glucose is usually administered immediately, but the Registrant told her not to bother as he would do this in the back of the ambulance. RS said that when she had suggested oral intake the Registrant had shrugged it off and said, “don’t bother” and that he was going to canulate. She accepted that she had not challenged the Registrant’s diagnosis that the patient had had a stroke but said that it was dangerous to give IV glucose as it affects the veins, especially when it is not needed. RS could not say if the Registrant had repeated the stroke test in the ambulance after administering IV glucose as she was driving the ambulance.

75. RS said the Registrant decided the patient needed to be checked in hospital due to signs of a stroke, but she considered these were residual symptoms from a previous stroke, not a new one. She told the Panel that she applied the FAST stroke test to the patient, and it was negative. RS said that there were no new onset stroke symptoms and that she believed, based on what the patient and his wife said, that how the patient presented was his “normal”. She informed the Panel that the patient they were attending was “out of our area. However, the receiving hospital for a stroke would have been in our operating area. So it meant that we would have got back to our own patch”. RS said that the Registrant told her that “he didn’t like that hospital [Medway] and didn’t want to stay working in that area for the rest of the night, and wanted to go back to our normal working area, which the stroke hospital [Maidstone] was in”. The Registrant then directed RS to take the patient to Maidstone Hospital, which had a Stroke unit, despite it being “much further away” than the closest hospital to the patient’s address - Medway Hospital.

76. RS drove the ambulance with blue lights on whilst the Registrant was in the back with the patient. She said the Registrant told her he would “call the stroke unit and sell it to the hospital that this was an acute stroke”. RS said she responded to this by saying there was nothing acute about it. The Registrant had said he would “wing it” because going to the stroke unit would get them back to their normal area and he did not want to spend the rest of the shift out of area, and he did not like the local hospital.

77. On 18 October 2021, RS and the Registrant responded to a call for a patient who had signs of urinary retention. RS could not recall the name of the patient due to the length of time that has passed since then. She said that after seeing the patient, they had taken the patient in the ambulance to Darent Valley Hospital (“the Hospital”). On the way to the hospital, the Registrant had pre-alerted the staff at the hospital and informed them that the patient had urinary retention. RS said this was not normal practice and she had never seen a urinary retention patient pre-alerted to hospital.

78. RS said that when they arrived at the Hospital, she had unloaded the patient but had not gone to the major assessment area with the Registrant. When the Registrant returned to the ambulance, he was very annoyed and explained to RS that he had had an argument with a nurse at the nurse patient handover station about pre-alerting urinary retention to the Hospital. RS said the Registrant told her the nurse had said she did not appreciate the red phone being clogged up with urinary retention patients. RS said the Registrant had checked the NHS website for urinary retention on his phone, and that this confirmed it was an emergency.

79. RS said that the patient on 18 October 2021 had been on holiday and was staying in an RV near Brands Hatch in a makeshift car park. The patient had been fully alert and orientated and had no confusion. His observations were all within normal parameters. RS said that she had previously routinely taken urinary retention patients to hospital but had never pre-alerted the hospitals as patients with urinary retention do not require beds in resuscitation wards which she understood to be the criteria to be applied when deciding whether to pre-alert the hospital.

80. RS said that she had requested her General Manager not to work with the Registrant after these two shifts. RS said that her request had been fairly well received as the Registrant did not typically work at the station and only did ad hoc shifts. RS said her reasons for the request were personal rather than clinical. She found the Registrant to be misogynistic and rude. RS said that she had not reported any clinical concerns until approached by a manager a couple of weeks later. RS said that she found the Registrant quite intimidating and was worried about repercussions for her if she reported him.

81. The Panel considered RS to be a helpful witness with a good recollection of the two shifts she worked with the Registrant. She was able to provide the Panel with useful additional information which had not been included in her statement and appeared to genuinely try and assist the Panel.

MG

82. MG has been a registered Paramedic since September 2013. From May 2018 he has been employed by Elite EMS as Clinical Lead Paramedic. In this role, MG said that he is responsible for circulating policy and procedure updates and JRCALC updates to his Paramedic colleagues. He also supports more junior Paramedic colleagues, particularly newly qualified Paramedics, in relation to any clinical concerns they may have.

83. MG told the Panel that the Registrant provided Paramedic services to Elite EMS from around August 2020. Initially, the Registrant was an employee and then he worked on a self-employed service contract. The Registrant worked only on the SECAMB contract from the Elite EMS depot in Greys, Essex and MG said the Registrant’s responsibilities included:

• fulfilling a lead clinician role as a HCPC Paramedic on a frontline double crewed ambulance;

• responding under emergency conditions to 999 calls received by SECAMB;

• aligning his scope of practice to that of the expectation of the respective Trust that he is employed by, i.e. SECAMB;

• upholding the expected standards of Elite EMS, SECAMB and the HCPC whilst in practice.

84. MG explained that Elite EMS Paramedics and other staff were able to obtain information about policies, procedures and relevant guidance such as from JRCALC, from the “make ready centre” and from the staff intranet for which staff have their own personal logins. Staff can access and review Elite EMS documentation as well as documents relating to the NHS contract which they were working on. MG said new members of Elite EMS were introduced to this documentation during the induction process.

85. SEACAMB contracts Elite EMS as a third-party provider for ambulance resources to support with operational requirements to enable it to meet its demand for patient care and deliver the service. MG said that while on shift, Elite EMS resources are controlled and tasked through the Trust Emergency Operations Centre.

86. MG said that Elite EMS staff working for SECAMB are required to document their attendance upon a patient by completing a paper form known as a Patient Report Form (“PRF”) or Patient Care Report (“PCR”). MG explained that at the end of a shift, completed PCRs are returned to one of two Elite EMS bases, Greys (now Thurrock) or Maidstone and posted into a designated PCR safe. The PCRs are removed daily from the safe by a manager who will record on a database the date and job number of the PCR. The PCRs are then further secured in the station until returned to SECAMB.

87. A random sample of PCRs completed by Elite EMS are audited as part of an Annual Audit programme. During auditing, an auditor may raise any concerns relating to the completion of the PCR or the care provided to the patient. MG explained that the audits were carried out by the Elite EMS Clinical Governance department, but he provided clinical support as required. He confirmed he did not typically carry out the audits himself, but that he had carried out audits and investigations in the past which were similar to this investigation.

88. PCR 0576 was selected for a random audit check. It related to a patient with a history of falls as he got up to use the toilet, who the Registrant had attended on 17 October 2021. MG said that the review of PCR 0576 identified that the patient had pain to their left shoulder and provided a pain score of 8. The primary survey showed that the patient was alert and did not require immediate emergency intervention as their airway was clear, breathing normal and the patient had peripheral circulation.

89. MG said that the PCR showed:

• the ambulance arrived on the scene at 04:16;

• a set of observations was completed at 04:20 which identified that the patient’s blood sugar was 3.8mmols. The patient’s past medical history did not include diabetes;

• the Registrant administered Glucose 10% 100mls intravenously (IV) at 05:16;

• at 05:20, IV Paracetamol 1g was administered intravenously;

• a second set of observations was completed at 05:20 and documented on the PCR outside of the normal box, with a cross through something that has been written in the box. They document the patient’s blood sugar as 7;

• the ambulance left the scene at 05:40.

90. MG told the Panel that the Registrant did not record his rationale for the use of IV Glucose 10% in a patient with a low blood sugar, but who was alert and documented to have a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15.

91. MG said that the JRCALC guidance on Glycaemic Emergencies in Adults and Children defines hypoglycaemia as, “In the patient with diabetes, the definition of hypoglycaemia in a blood glucose of <4.0mmol/1.9. This should not be confused with the lower level of <3.0mmol/1 used for patients without diabetes”.

92. MG said that in the absence of a history of diabetes, the patient was borderline for hypoglycaemia. The guidance further states, “there are three types of hypoglycaemias: mild, moderate and severe. In mild cases, the person can treat themselves, whereas in severe cases, third party assistance will be required”.

93. MG said that the JRCALC guidelines give indications for the use of IV glucose as:

• Hypoglycaemia (blood glucose) <4.0 millimoles per litre) or suspected hypoglycaemia when oral administration is not possible and a rapid improvement in clinical state and blood glucose level is required;

• An unconscious patient, where hypoglycaemia is considered a likely cause;

• Management of hypoglycaemia in patients who have not yet responded to the administration of IM Glucagon after 10 minutes.

94. MG said that in this case, the use of IV Glucose fell outside of the medication guidance and suggested that the Registrant had not followed the guidance as provided within the JRCALC guidelines. In his opinion, the use of IV 10% glucose was not justified and was a risk to the patient given that IV glucose is an invasive procedure which can cause significant irritation to the vein. MG said that, based on the information recorded on the PCR, the patient met the classification of mild hypoglycaemia and could have been treated with oral glucose given that the patient was fully alert.

95. When asked if the use of IV glucose was simply administered via the IV route as access was available due to the administration of IV Paracetamol, MG said that the concern with this was that the administration of glucose was delayed for one hour after the patient’s blood sugar level was noted to be low. He said that there had therefore been time to provide glucose via the oral route before administering IV glucose. A further concern was the risk associated with the use of IV administration, glucose being an irritant especially when extravasation occurs.

96. The concerns about the Registrant’s treatment of this patient were recorded on Elite EMS Incident and Accident Reporting System on 20 October 2022 as a “medication error”. On the same date, the Registrant was stood down from duty from working any further shifts for Elite EMS due to concerns about his practice. MG said that he supported an internal investigation into the incident (from a clinical perspective) which resulted in a report dated 22 July 2022. The report was forwarded to SECAMB so it was aware of Elite EMS’s findings.

97. In answer to Panel questions, MG said that the Registrant had produced a statement but had not engaged with Elite EMS’s investigation after he had been suspended from taking further shifts on 20 October 2021. MG also confirmed that he had not been involved in the investigation into an incident involving the Registrant on 18 October 2021.
98. The Panel found MG to be a thoughtful and helpful witness with a good recall of the issues upon which he gave evidence.

Person C

99. Person C is a nurse registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (“NMC”) since 18 August 2008. Between February 2021 and 29 May 2022, Person C worked as a Senior Sister in the emergency department (“the Department”) at Darent Valley Hospital (“the Hospital”).

100. Person C told the Panel that on 18 October 2021, she was working a night shift in the Department when she received a blue call regarding a patient who was suffering from urinary retention but whose observations were all stable. Person C said that she could not see why there had been a blue call.

101. At approximately 02:00, two paramedics, the Registrant and his crew mate, arrived at the Department with a patient who was showing signs of urinary retention. Person C said she could not recall the name of the patient and that she had not met the Registrant prior to 18 October 2021.

102. Person C said that the Registrant offloaded the patient into the Department, and she asked why he had registered this as a blue call as this was not used for urinary retention as while this is uncomfortable for the patient, it is not life-threatening. Person C explained that a blue call was used when a patient needed to be seen immediately due to a threat to either life or limb. She said that this was a standard conversation between staff at the Hospital and paramedics who report a blue call so that they know which patients to prioritise. Person C said that it was a common part of a Paramedic job as they convey patients in and out of the Department all the time. Person C said that during this conversation, the Registrant told her that he had many years of experience as a Paramedic. She had expected him, as an experienced Paramedic, to be aware of when to use a blue call.

103. When Person C asked the Registrant about the patient, he had immediately become defensive with her. She said that the Registrant had got very close to her and puffed out his chest. Person C said she was 5’ 4” and the Registrant was over 6’ tall. He was very defensive and had got very close to her – within about half a meter of her. He had been angry with her questions. Person C could not recall the Registrant’s exact words used during the conversation due to the time that has passed since the incident. However, she said that the Registrant had spoken in a raised tone and with aggression. She said the Registrant had said words to the effect of “you don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t know what I do”. These words had been directed at her, and he had looked her in the eye.

104. Person C told the Panel that there was no need for the Registrant to be angry at her as she had just wanted to understand why the patient was put in as a blue call. Person C said that there was no threat to life or limb with urinary retention, so she needed to know whether there were any further issues with the patient and whether these issues were the reason for the blue call. Person C said the Registrant had given her no further details about the patient or why he had registered a blue call. She said that after examining the patient, there was no evidence as to why a blue call was needed.

105. Person C said that while there was no physical contact between herself and the Registrant, she had felt threatened and uncomfortable and so she had walked away from the conversation. She said that she had felt shaken by the conversation for the rest of her night shift. The Department was a busy environment with numerous members of staff and patients, and she was unable to remember who else was present at the time and may therefore have witnessed her interaction with the Registrant. It only had five beds so if all the beds are full, then some patients will be transferred into lower care to make room for a blue call and might miss out on the care they need.

106. Following the incident Person C called the duty leader at SECAMB as this was a crew that they did not deal with regularly in the Department and she was unhappy with the way the Registrant had spoken to her. She also reported the incident via the DATIX report system.

107. In answer to Panel questions, Person C said that she had taken the blue call through the Control Room and had not spoken directly to the Registrant at that time. The information regarding the unremarkable observations of the patient was relayed to her from the Control Room, which is manned by non-medical personnel. It is therefore not right to question details about a blue call on the phone.

108. Person C said that she had been a qualified nurse with 15 years’ experience of working in Emergency Departments where she had developed a “thick skin” regarding the aggression shown there. At the time of this incident, Person C said that she had felt threatened and uncomfortable and that it took quite a lot for her to feel like that given her experience of the Department where such matters were usually “like water off a duck’s back”. Person C said that it took a lot for her to complain to the Ambulance Service and over the years she had not done this very often. Person C said that she no longer works in Emergency Departments as she was very tired of the anger and aggression there, and this incident had added to this.

109. Person C said that she had reported the Registrant’s conduct as soon as he had left the Department. She said she had rung the Area Team Leader for the Ambulance Service, and she had also completed the DATIX report online whilst still on shift. Person C explained that the DATIX form was an indicant reporting system and would have been sent to SECAMB for their response. Person C could not recall if she saw the DATIX report when making her witness statement but felt that she had seen it at some point. She said her witness statement reflected the DATIX report. Person C confirmed that her witness statement had been given over the phone to the solicitors and had been based on her recollection of the incident.

110. The Panel considered Person C to be a reliable witness who provided straightforward evidence to it.

Person B

111. Person B gave evidence about the Registrant’s attendance upon her mother (Patient C) during the early hours of 18 October 2021. She told the Panel about the events that resulted in the ambulance attending and about the background issues that had arisen regarding Patient C’s care.

112. During the evening of 17 October 2021, Person B called the NHS 111 helpline to ask for Patient C to be seen by a GP (General Practitioner) to treat a Urinary Tract Infection (“UTI”) with antibiotics. Person B said that she had asked the 111 Operator not to send an ambulance as Patient C was very frightened of healthcare staff. Patient C had a complex medical history which included UTIs, kidney stones and immune system problems which placed her at risk of infection. Person B said that they were awaiting a meeting about a treatment escalation plan and ambulance crews had previously complained about being called out.

113. Person B said that she and her brother had Lasting Power of Attorney over Patient C’s care during the times when she lost mental capacity due to infection. Otherwise, Patient C had a normal full scale intelligence quotient and mental capacity. Person B explained that there had been repeated problems with ambulance staff, community health staff, 111 and GPs in their home in relation to her mother’s healthcare as no-one appeared to want responsibility for treating Patient C. Person B said that requests were made by her family as early as January 2021 for a joint meeting to finalise the treatment escalation plan. This plan was never produced and signed off between GP and Kent Community Health staff despite them finally meeting with Person B on 26 January 2023. [Redacted].

114. At around 05:00 on 18 October 2021, the Registrant and an emergency care assistant had arrived at the house having been dispatched by the NHS 111 helpline. They had not been attended by the Registrant or his colleague previously. Person B explained that Patient C had a hospital bed in the living room and, as a result of the Covid pandemic, ran a “closed” house with reduced carers. Person B worked from home and all the carers wore masks to reduce the risk of infection.

115. Person B said that the Registrant was wearing his face mask incorrectly because it only covered his mouth and did not cover his nose. Person B said she asked the Registrant to wear his face mask correctly because Patient C was at high risk of catching an infection. She said that the Registrant had made a half-hearted gesture to put it on correctly. He then started to become angry with her, raising his voice louder and louder. Person B said the Registrant’s anger appeared to build during the encounter, with him talking over her when she tried to say something and shouting at her. She did not recall any specific comments made by the Registrant other than “why have we been called?”.

116. When Person B spoke to the 111 Operator, she had requested a GP and was told there was no point sending an ambulance as Paramedics cannot prescribe antibiotics. She said the ambulance crew should have been pre-warned that an ambulance had not been requested to go to hospital when they were allocated the job. Person B told the Registrant several times that they had not called for an ambulance. The Registrant only appeared to accept this when, at about 06:30, Patient C’s carer arrived and told him “they did not call an ambulance, 111 did”. Person B described the carer as a “formidable young woman”. Person B said that the Registrant had then calmed down a little. She described the Registrant’s behaviour as being “out of control” and frightening, and this was why she had asked him to leave the house.

117. Person B described the Registrant as a tall broad man who stood over her while she was sat on the bed next to her mother. Person B said she was frightened by the Registrant’s behaviour, which she had thought was unusual and inappropriate in a health professional attending a patient. She was afraid that Patient C was not getting the healthcare she urgently required and did not want Patient C to be upset. Person B said that at one point, her mother asked the Registrant not to shout at Person B.

118. A complaint was made by Person B to Elite EMS about the Registrant’s general behaviour at work and about him not wearing his mask correctly. Person B said that Elite EMS told her that the requirement for service for healthcare professionals in October 2021 was to wear fluid resistant surgical masks (level 2) when attending all patients. She said she was informed that the standard use of these masks was to ensure that both the mouth and nose of the wearer were covered.

119. Person B said that the Registrant had shown little interest in assessing Patient C and had seemed angry at her. The physical examination of Patient C was done by the Emergency Care Assistant who accompanied the Registrant. Person B believed that the Registrant made a visual assessment and from that alone had judged that Patient C needed to go to hospital.

120. The Registrant asked to see Patient C’s Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order (“DNAR”) and Power of Attorney when it had come up in conversation. Person B told the Panel that when she had showed them, the Registrant had said, “that’s you saying that”, questioning if the Power of Attorney was real. Person B explained that she had the same name as Patient C and that other health and care professionals had also queried these documents. Person B said she was shocked that the Registrant should have queried the DNAR as this had been signed by a well-known local doctor. Person B said that the Power of Attorney was legitimate and signed off. Person B said she was not present when the DNAR had been completed by Kent Community Health Foundation Trust staff earlier in the pandemic, and they had posted it through the letter box.

121. In answer to Panel questions, Person B said that the Registrant’s behaviour had stood out for her amongst all the various healthcare professionals with whom she had dealt because she thought he had “lost it” and she did not know why. She could not recall what the Registrant had said in response. Person B said she was also worried for the Registrant’s colleague. She said she had asked the Registrant if he was alright. Person B said she had been frightened for her immediate safety, and she was not someone who was easily frightened. Person B said that she hated complaining but people should not be frightened in their own home. She made the complaint because she had been concerned for herself and for her mother. She did not know if the Registrant had been at the beginning or the end of his shift. Person B checked her records and said that she had made her complaint on 21 October 2021.

122. The Panel was grateful to Person B for raising her concerns and following them through. It was clear to the Panel that Person B was a strong advocate for her mother and very aware of the nuances of care that she required. It found her evidence to be clear and consistent.

 

Decision on facts

The Panel’s approach

123. The Panel is mindful that the burden of proving the Allegation is on the HCPC and that to do so, there must be sufficient evidence to satisfy the civil standard of proof. The Panel has considered each of the Particulars and sub-particulars of the Allegation separately. Where the Panel has received opinion evidence, the Panel has reached its own conclusions on the matters referred to. It listened carefully to the submissions of the Presenting Officer and noted that the Registrant has at no stage in the regulatory process provided any comment on the allegation.

124. Legal advice was provided to the Panel by the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied. The Panel carefully considered the documentary evidence provided to it and had regard to the Practice Notes to which it had been referred. It was mindful that it was obliged to approach the consideration of an allegation sequentially, determining firstly whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, then whether those facts amount to the statutory ground set out in the allegation and if so, whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

125. In determining whether an allegation is “well founded” or “proved”, the Panel was required to decide firstly whether the HCPC, which has the burden of persuasion in relation to the facts alleged, has discharged that burden.

Particular 1 was found proved (on 17 September 2020, you drove an ambulance with blue lights on when you did not have permission to do so)

126. The Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probability, that Colleague A observed the Registrant driving a WAS ambulance on 17 September 2020 under blue lights when he did not have permission to do so. She was driving towards the Registrant in the ambulance and therefore had a good view of him and the vehicle, which she recognised. She was aware that WAS crews were not permitted to use blue lights to transport patients and immediately checked with Witness JA whether permission had been given for their use on this occasion, which they had not. Colleague A and Witness JA checked the “handbrake rule” document submitted in respect of the journey undertaken by the ambulance at the time it was observed to be under blue lights. This recorded a journey time which could only have been achieved under blue lights. They verified the timings on the document with the patient notes which recorded the time the Patient arrived at the hospital, which were consistent.

Particular 2(a) was found proved (between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 you rubbed the top of Colleague A’s leg with your hand)

127. The Panel considered it more likely than not that the Registrant touched Colleague A’s leg during a discussion at a service station as to where the Registrant could purchase black trousers such as those she was wearing. Colleague A did not report the Registrant over this incident, saying it made her feel uncomfortable but that she did not wish to make an issue of it. However, she considered it appropriate to mention it when asked by the HCPC of any concerns that she had about the Registrant.

128. Whilst it would have been preferable for the Panel to have the benefit of the Registrant’s recollection, and to have heard from the colleague who accompanied Colleague A on the day in question, the Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did touch Colleague A’s leg with his hand. Colleague A demonstrated the motion to the Panel and was clearly discomforted by the Registrant’s action.

Particular 2(b) was found not proved (between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 you said “do you know any younger staff that would fuck me”, or words to that effect)

129. When giving evidence to the Panel, Colleague A was unable to recall the detail provided in her witness statement – that the Registrant made the alleged remark in her presence. The Panel had no reason to doubt the evidence of Colleague A in this regard, and there was no other evidence before the Panel which could substantiate the Particular. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider that the HCPC had discharged its evidential burden in relation to this Particular. This Particular is therefore not proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 2(c) was found proved (between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 you said “would you fuck her” or words to that effect when referring to Person A)

130. Both Colleague A and witness JA reported hearing the Registrant asking members of staff this question and showing a picture of Person A. They provided details of how and when the question was asked by the Registrant. Neither challenged the Registrant when they heard such questions however, since then, WAS has adopted more robust HR policies, including a policy for whistleblowing.

131. The Registrant has not provided any representations to the Panel in respect of this Particular.

132. Whilst the Panel has not been provided with a picture of Person A, or received evidence of the relationship between the Registrant and Person A, it is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Registrant did ask colleagues the question while showing a picture of Person A. This Particular is therefore proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 3 was found proved in respect of 2(c) but not proved in respect of 2(a) (your actions in Particular 2 were sexual)

133. The Panel had careful regard to the submissions of the Presenting Officer in relation to the meaning of “sexual” in the context of this Particular, as well as the advice provided by the Legal Assessor. It noted the definition of “sexual” as set out in section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and considered the context in respect of each Particular.

134. Mindful that it is for the HCPC to prove a Particular on the balance of probability, the Panel found that although the Registrant touched the upper leg of Colleague A, and that this was inappropriate, it could not find that the action was sexual given the demonstration of the touch provided by Colleague A, which appeared as more of a plucking motion, and the apparently plausible context that the Registrant wished to purchase similar trousers to those worn by Colleague A. It considered that there was insufficient evidence before it that the Registrant was making the most of the location and context to touch Colleague A in a sexual way. Accordingly, this Particular is not proved in respect of 2(a).

135. The Panel did not have any such reservations in relation to the Registrant showing a picture of Person A and asking the alleged question. Whilst aware that the word “fuck” is a profanity very commonly used as part of everyday language, by definition it means to copulate or have sexual intercourse and is clearly therefore sexual in nature. Accordingly, Particular 3 is proved, on the balance of probability, in respect of Particular 2(c).

136. The Panel did not consider Particular 2(b) in the context of Particular 3 given it found 2(b) not proved.

Particular 4 was found not proved (your actions in Particular 2(a) and / or 2(b) were sexually motivated)

137. The Panel noted the definition of sexual motivation highlighted by the Presenting Officer as set out within the case of Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) that “sexual motivation means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”. It was mindful of its determination that the act of touching Colleague A’s leg was inappropriate but not sexual, and the context of the conversation taking place when the touch happened. It was also aware that the Registrant was described by a range of witnesses as misogynistic, rude and intimidating. However, no witness characterised him as subtle or devious. The Panel was not persuaded, in these circumstances, that the HCPC had discharged its burden of proving that the touching of Colleague A's leg by the Registrant was sexually motivated. Accordingly, this Particular is not proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 5 was found proved (in or around summer 2020, you slept whilst on duty during a cricket match at Sussex Cricket Club)

138. The Panel had regard to the oral evidence of JA and the hearsay statement provided by SB in respect of this Particular. It noted that SB told JA of the incident, albeit with some delay, and then provided additional information in email correspondence and his witness statement. The information provided was plausible and had not been challenged by the Registrant. SB provided an explanation as to why he had not reported the behaviour to WAS at the time.

139. The Panel was not aware of any information to undermine the account provided by SB and was content to accept his evidence despite it being provided as hearsay. It was open to the Registrant to have provided his views on this (and every other) Particular, but the Registrant had not done so. In the absence of any such information, the Particular was proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 6(a) was found proved (on 17 October 2021, you did not give quick acting carbohydrates to a patient with a low blood sugar level)

140. The evidence in respect of this Particular was contemporaneous in respect of the patient care record 0576. This document confirmed the date and time the Registrant and his colleague attended the patient, the nature and outcome of the observations and the treatment provided. The Panel accepted the evidence of RS that she had suggested offering the patient food to raise his blood sugars and that the Registrant told her not to bother as he preferred to give IV Glucose in the ambulance and transport him to hospital. The evidence of RS was supported by that of MG, who provided additional evidence on the JRCALC guidelines in respect of Hypoglycaemia and how it applied to this patient. MG told the Panel of the risks caused by the course of treatment selected by the Registrant, and that this breached the JRCALC guidelines as the patient was marginally hypoglycaemic, conscious, communicating and capable of swallowing.

141. The Panel was satisfied that this Particular was proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 6(b) was found proved (on 17 October 2021, you administered IV glucose to a patient when this was not clinically justified)

142. For the same reasons as set out for Particular 6(a), the Panel is satisfied that this Particular is proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 6(c) was found proved (on 17 October 2021, you drove to Maidstone Hospital instead of Medway Hospital which was closer to the patient’s address)

143. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s attendance upon this patient, as documented on PCR 0576. It noted the context provided by RS in respect of why the Registrant wished to avoid going to Medway Hospital, mindful that the Registrant has provided no explanation or challenge to the Particular. RS was a less qualified and less experienced colleague who appropriately conducted the FAST stroke test and concluded that the patient had residual issues with movement due to an earlier stroke, as well as marginally low blood sugars. She told the Panel why the Registrant wanted to take the patient to Maidstone Hospital instead of Medway hospital and expressed her reservations as to the treatment as far as she was able. The Panel had no reason to doubt RS’s account, especially in the absence of any challenge or explanation by the Registrant.

144. The Panel was satisfied that this Particular was proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 6(d) was found proved (on 17 October 2021, you pre-alerted Maidstone Hospital and informed them the patient had a stroke when they had not)

145. The Panel found this Particular proved on a similar basis as Particular 6(c) above. Both RS and Person C expressed concern at the Registrant’s assertion that the patient had experienced a stroke, rather than a non-injury fall from which he could not get up with his wife’s assistance. RS confirmed to the Panel her assessment that the patient was FAST negative and that his blood sugars could be improved and monitored before determining to transport him to a hospital. This decision of the Registrant was compounded by his deciding to pre-alert the hospital.

146. The Panel was not provided with any explanation as to why the Registrant chose to pre-alert the attendance of the patient as a stroke. The Panel was content to accept RS’s evidence as to why Maidstone Hospital was preferred to Medway Hospital and accordingly found this Particular proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 7(a) was found proved (on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you raised your voice to and / or shouted at Person B when asked to wear your face mask correctly)

147. The evidence of Person B in this matter is confirmed by the evidence of RS. Person B made a contemporaneous complaint about the Registrant’s behaviour on 21 October 2021, in Particular in respect of his demeanour, which was subsequently upheld.

148. There was no information before the Panel from the Registrant as to any mitigating factors for his behaviour. The Panel was content that this Particular is proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 7(b) was found proved (on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you asked Person B in a raised voice “why have we been called”, or words to that effect)

149. The Panel was content that this Particular is proved for the same reasons as set out in respect of 7(a). Person B provided a contemporaneous complaint about the conduct of the Registrant, which was supported by the evidence of RS.

Particular 7(c) was found proved (on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you said “that’s you saying that”, or words to that effect when shown Patient C’s Do Not Attempt Resuscitation and Power of Attorney)

150. The Panel could identify no reason that undermined the evidence of Person B in respect of this Particular. Accordingly, for the same reasons as 7(a) and (b), the Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had proved its case on the balance of probability.

Particular 7(d) was found proved (on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you put your face and / or chest close to Person C)

151. Person C provided calm and measured evidence as to the Registrant’s conduct and demeanour towards her when she challenged him as to why the patient had been transported to the hospital as a blue call. Her description of his attitude was consistent with the other witnesses. She told the Panel why his behaviour was unexpected and unwarranted, and that while she may be used to such conduct from patients and their families, she did not expect it from a professional colleague. She was so exercised by the conduct that she completed DATIX report during her shift and rang Elite EMS to complain.

152. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant behaved in an unprofessional way towards Person C, invading her personal space as he justified his action in bringing a patient to the hospital as a blue call. Accordingly, this Particular is proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 7(e) was found proved (on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you said to Person C “You don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t know what I do” or words to that effect)

153. For the same reasons as set out at 7(d), the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant was unprofessional in his communication with Person C. Accordingly, Particular 7(e) is proved on the balance of probability.

Decision on Statutory Grounds

154. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to find that each fact found proved equalled misconduct. He characterised the conduct found proved as “a series of clinical and inter-personal issues” which he said revealed an attitudinal issue on the part of the Registrant. He reminded the Panel that this had been identified by a number of witnesses.

155. The Panel’s finding that the Registrant contravened WAS policy and guidance by operating an ambulance under blue lights without permission or clinical justification, was connected with the Registrant’s employment and was unprofessional in the Presenting Officer’s submission. Further, rubbing the leg of Colleague A was also highly inappropriate. It had the effect of making Colleague A feel very uncomfortable, and this disquiet was picked up on by her crewmate, who commented upon it. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that it found that the Registrant showing pictures of Person A to his colleagues at work and asking them if they would “fuck her” amounted to conduct which was sexual in nature, which he said was inappropriate to a work environment. Similarly, sleeping at a cricket match while providing professional services was also inappropriate and unprofessional, causing risks to the players and other attendees.

156. In respect of Particulars 6(a) and (b), the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Registrant had not followed the JRCALC guidelines in respect of the administration of IV Glucose. He had administered the glucose to the patient when it was inappropriate and unnecessary, then compounded his behaviour by pre-alerting the patient to a specialist stroke unit when there was no stroke.

157. Person B told the Panel that the Registrant was confrontational towards her, and that she found his attendance at her home to be distressing to her and Patient C. She also explained that she was concerned for the Registrant as well as his colleague. Person C also gave evidence that she considered the Registrant’s behaviour towards her to be aggressive, unnecessary and inappropriate. She found it so inappropriate that she made a DATIX report and a complaint, despite dealing with aggressive members of the public on a regular basis. The Presenting Officer submitted that all of these instances amount to serious misconduct – he reminded the Panel of the definition of misconduct as set out in the case of Roylance v GMC, and the expectation outlined in the case of Meadow v GMC that the misconduct should be serious, stating that the facts proved by the Panel engaged crossed the threshold for misconduct.

158. The Presenting Officer then directed the Panel’s attention to the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedic and the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics adopted by the HCPC. He suggested that a number of standards were engaged, including 1, 1.1, 1.4, 2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 4. He concluded his submission by inviting the Panel to find that the Registrant’s conduct on a number of occasions met the threshold of professional conduct going to his fitness to practice, as set out in the case of Remedy and that this misconduct was serious. He also referenced the case of Nandi v GMC, which suggests that misconduct involves professional conduct which is deplorable, and reminded the Panel that witness RS found the Registrant to be intimidating.

159. The Panel did not have the benefit of any representations from the Registrant in respect of statutory grounds.

160. Having found a number of Particulars proved, the Panel was required to judge whether a statutory ground of impairment, as advanced by the HCPC, was engaged. It was conscious that deciding the issue of statutory ground was a matter for its own judgement and that it needed to consider the statutory ground of impairment in respect of each of the Particulars found proved.

161. The Panel took into account the oral submissions of the Presenting Officer and accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was satisfied that the relevant statutory ground of impairment in this matter was that of misconduct, as set out in Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Order. None of the other statutory grounds set out within the Order had been alleged by the HCPC and they were not therefore considered by the Panel.

162. The Panel reminded itself that misconduct usually involves some act or omission falling short of what is considered proper in the circumstances. Standards of propriety are often set out for regulated professionals and, in this instance, the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics adopted by the HCPC in 2016 were of relevance, as well as the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics adopted in 2014. The Panel was mindful that a breach of professional standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct. The Standards the Panel believed were engaged and breached by the Registrant in this matter were:

a. The Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):

1. Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers
Treat service users and carers with respect

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

2. Communicate appropriately and effectively
Communicate with service users and carers

2.2 You must listen to service users and carers and take account of their needs and wishes.

6. Manage risk
Identify and minimise risk

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

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

9. Be honest and trustworthy
Personal and professional behaviour

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

b. The Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014):

1. be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice

1.4 be able to work safely in challenging and unpredictable environments, including being able to take appropriate action to assess and manage risk

2. be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession

2.1 understand the need to act in the best interests of service user at all times

9. be able to work appropriately with others

9.1 be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others

9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team

9.5 recognise the principles and practices of other health and care professionals and health and care systems and how they interact with the role of a paramedic

15. understand the need to establish and maintain a safe practice environment

15.5 be able to establish safe environments for practice, which minimise risks to service users, those treating them and others, including the use of hazard control and particularly infection control

163. The following authorities were considered by the Panel to be relevant to its considerations:

a. Roylance v General Medical Council No 2 [2000] 1 AC 311, which advances the premise that:

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

b. R (Remedy UK Ltd) v GMC [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin), which states that the conduct must be “sufficiently serious that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise”. Therefore, not all acts and omissions of a registrant will be regulatory matters; some will fall outside of the scope of the jurisdiction of regulatory law.

c. Shaw v General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin), which suggests that in matters which are finely balanced, the issue of moral blameworthiness or opprobrium can be taken into account as a relevant factor of misconduct.

d. Calhaem v General Medical Council (2007) – which assessed caselaw and concluded that 5 principles were relevant to the issue of conduct:

i. Mere negligence does not constitute misconduct, however negligent acts or omissions which are particularly serious may amount to misconduct.

ii. A single negligent act or omission is less likely to amount to misconduct than multiple acts or omissions but in some circumstances a single act or omission, if grave, could be misconduct.

iii. Deficient professional performance is different to negligence and misconduct. It connotes a standard of professional performance which is unacceptably low and which, save in exceptional circumstances, has been demonstrated by reference to a fair sample of the doctor’s work.

iv. A single instance of negligent treatment, unless very serious indeed, would be unlikely to constitute deficient professional performance.

v. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to extend the interpretation of deficient professional performance in order to encompass matters which constitute misconduct.

e. Beckwith v SRA [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), which states that it is necessary to focus on the particular statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to a particular profession, rather than attempt some universal statement of principle, and that there is a need to hold members of a profession to a higher standard on some matters, while not falling into the trap of requiring members of that profession to be paragons of virtue in all matters.

164. The Panel therefore proceeded to consider each Particular proved on the facts in respect of the statutory ground.

Particular 1 – On 17 September 2020, you drove an ambulance with blue lights on when you did not have permission to do so – Misconduct

165. The Panel noted the evidence from JA and Colleague A that WAS did not permit drivers of their ambulances to drive under blue lights but to use them only when the vehicle was stationary. Although the evidence as to the induction and training of drivers by WAS in 2020 was, on occasion, in conflict, the Panel had no doubt that all employees of the company were aware that they provided event cover and patient transports only. WAS did not provide an emergency response and JA was clear that she would not accept emergency transports. If an emergency occurred during a planned transport, she would expect the crew to call 999, not deal with it themselves. Further, the ambulances were not equipped or stocked for such emergency situations, and, as Clinical Lead responsible for the maintenance of WAS policies and procedures, the Registrant should have been aware of the restricted operational capabilities.

166. The patient transfer on 17 September 2020 involved transporting a patient between hospitals for dialysis, waiting while it took place before returning the patient to the original hospital. The Panel recalled that:

a. the Registrant refused to return the patient and left the hospital, leaving his colleague to ring JA and explain what had happened;

b. as the senior clinician on board the ambulance, if the patient was sufficiently ill to warrant transport under blue lights, the Registrant should have been caring for the patient, not driving;

c. the Registrant chose to ignore the instructions of his employer not to drive under blue lights where there was no medical or operational imperative.

167. Driving any vehicle under blue lights is, in the Panel’s view, a source of increased risk for the patient, crew and other road users when compared to journeys not under blue light conditions. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant made a conscious choice to complete the journey in contravention of company policy. The Panel had not been made aware of any explanation or justification being offered by the Registrant for his actions, either to WAS at the time or in the regulatory proceedings thereafter.

168. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in completing a routine patient transfer under blue lights during rush hour, contrary to company policy and in the absence of any clinical justification, amounted to a breach of paragraph 6.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and paragraphs
1.4 (assess and manage risk) and 15.5 (safe environment for practice) of the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics. It considered that this conduct fell far short of what would be expected of a Paramedic undertaking a patient transport, and is serious. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the statutory ground of misconduct is made out, on the balance of probability, in respect of this Particular.

Particular 2(a) – between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 you rubbed the top of Colleague A’s leg with your hand – Misconduct

169. The evidence of Colleague A was accepted by the Panel. The standards of proficiency for paramedics and the standards of conduct, performance and ethics address the behaviour expected of professionals registered by the HCPC. Both documents highlight the need for registered professionals to work appropriately with other professionals and build and sustain professional relationships. The Panel considered that it was inappropriate for any registered professional, whether on shift or not, to touch the leg of a colleague. In this case, Colleague A was effectively trapped by the Registrant in the passenger seat of the ambulance while the Registrant leant into the vehicle towards her. Her ability to create more personal space was therefore substantially inhibited and caused her to feel uncomfortable. This also had the potential to compromise the working relationship between the Registrant and Colleague A, which in turn could compromise the safety of patients.

170. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant acted inappropriately in touching the leg of Colleague A, and that this conduct fell significantly below the standard expected of a registered professional. Further, the Registrant either did not appear to have recognised the distress his actions caused or alternatively chose to act in that way deliberately for his own purposes. Either way, the Panel was satisfied that the misconduct was serious and occurred while Colleague A was working (albeit on a meal break) and seated in a WAS vehicle. It was therefore in a professional context even though the Registrant was not working at the time. Although Colleague A did not immediately report her discomfort with the Registrant’s actions, she did consider it appropriate to mention it to the HCPC when asked if she had any concerns about the Registrant.

171. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the statutory ground of misconduct is made out in respect of this Particular.

Particular 2(c) – between June 2020 and 7 October 2020 you said “would you fuck her” or words to that effect when referring to Person A – Misconduct

172. Both Colleague A and witness JA reported hearing the Registrant asking members of staff this question on a number of occasions, showing a picture of Person A as he did so. The Panel consider such language and behaviour to be distasteful and inappropriate for a workplace, even if made in jest as suggested by JA. It noted that neither JA nor Colleague A felt able to challenge the Registrant about this conduct at any point. In these circumstances, the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct.

Particular 3 in respect of 2(c) – your actions in Particular 2 were sexual – Misconduct

173. The Panel was satisfied that the sexual nature of the comment, and its repeated re-telling to any new individual, was highly inappropriate. It therefore had no hesitation in determining that the Registrant, in making a sexual remark in a professional environment, demonstrated behaviour which fell far below that which could reasonably be expected from a registered professional. The Panel therefore concluded that Particular 3, in respect of Particular 2(c) amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Particular 5 – in or around summer 2020, you slept whilst on duty during a cricket match at Sussex Cricket Club – Misconduct

174. The purpose of the Registrant and his colleague being in attendance at the cricket match was to ensure medical cover was available in the event of any incident (emergency or otherwise) occurring. The Registrant would be expected to react promptly and appropriately to any such incident, wherever it occurred in the grounds. The Panel considered it likely that taking a nap in those circumstances would inhibit the Registrant’s ability to respond to a request for his services appropriately and accurately. It noted that going to the medical room, turning off the lights, closing the door and going to sleep, putting members of the staff and public at risk, amounted to a serious breach of the professional standards expected from a registered Paramedic.

Particular 6(a) – on 17 October 2021, you did not give quick acting carbohydrates to a patient with a low blood sugar level – Not misconduct

175. The Panel noted that this patient did not display symptoms of hypoglycaemia, and his marginally low blood sugar of 3.8 mmol/l (if he had diabetes) was picked up as part of the routine observations undertaken by the Registrant’s colleague. She suggested that the low blood sugar reading could be addressed by providing the patient with some food or quick acting carbohydrate, but the Registrant did not wish to proceed in this way, stating he preferred to canulate the patient and administer IV Glucose in the ambulance.

176. Given that the patient was not recorded as having diabetes, his blood sugar level did not, according to the JRCALC guidelines, indicate hypoglycaemia. If the patient did have diabetes, his blood sugar level of 3.8mmol/l was marginally low and could have been self-treated by the patient as he was alert and able to swallow. In either case, there was no imperative to administer quick acting carbohydrates to the patient. In the circumstances, the Registrant should have been able to justify providing no treatment to a patient with a marginally low blood sugar. The Panel was therefore unable to classify the Registrant’s failure to administer quick acting carbohydrates, or indeed any food or drink, as inappropriate. It follows therefore that the failure to administer quick acting carbohydrates in these circumstances does not constitute misconduct, let alone serious misconduct.

Particular 6(b) – on 17 October 2021, you administered IV glucose to a patient when this was not clinically justified – Misconduct

177. This patient presented with minimally low blood sugars (if he was diabetic) but no symptoms of hypoglycaemia. He was attended by the Registrant at 04:16 with the first set of observations being conducted at 04:20, through which the low blood sugar (if he was diabetic) of 3.8 mmol/l was identified. The observations were repeated at 05:20 following administration of IV Glucose in the ambulance at 05:16. The observations recorded the blood sugar at that point to be within the normal range (7 mmol/l).

178. The patient record did not identify that the patient had diabetes. The Panel note that the JRCALC guidance for hypoglycaemia provides that, in a patient without diabetes, the blood sugar level would be below 3.0 mmol/l. The guidance also provides that in severe cases of hypoglycaemia “third party assistance will be required”. The FAST stroke test recorded on the patient record does not show a tick in the “Suspected Stroke” box, and that the Face and Arm observations are negative, but the Speech observation is positive.

179. RS told the Panel that the patient suffered a non-injury fall from his bed, from which his wife was unable to assist him to rise. They assured the crew that the residual speech impact was as a result of an earlier stroke. Notwithstanding this information, the Registrant appears to have reached the conclusion that the patient needed to be transported to hospital for “further Assessment and Treatment” and required IV Glucose, which he administered in the ambulance at 05:20 despite RS offering to get the patient some food, and when that suggestion was dismissed by Registrant, offering to collect the drug bag from the ambulance to allow the administration of IV glucose.

180. The JRCALC guidelines provide that treatment with IV Glucose is indicated when:

a. Blood glucose is less than 4mmol/l or suspected hypoglycaemia when oral administration is not possible and a rapid improvement in clinical state and blood glucose is required;

b. The patient is unconscious, where hypoglycaemia is considered a likely cause;

c. To manage hypoglycaemia in patients who have not responded to the administration of IM Glucagon after 10 minutes.

181. The investigation conducted by Elite EMS, supported by witness MG, determined that the Registrant “did inappropriately administer IV glucose to a patient who had no history of diabetes, their blood sugar was 3.8. mmols and the patient fully alert. The use of IV 10% glucose was not justified and was a risk to the patient given that IV glucose can cause significant irritation to the vein… The failure to comply with the guidelines for management of hypoglycaemia evidence that Paramedic MB failed to follow guidance relevant to his practice as required by the HCPC Code of conduct, performance and ethics (2016)”. The patient record identified no rationale for deciding not to provide the patient with food or quick acting carbohydrates to raise his blood sugar. It also provided no rationale for administering IV Glucose an hour after identifying the low blood sugar.

182. The Panel consider the decision by the Registrant to administer IV Glucose an hour after the identification of low blood glucose (instead of attempting to raise it with food or quick acting glucose) to an alert patient with no symptoms of hypoglycaemia to be reckless and without justification. This was contrary to JRCALC guidelines and a breach of the standards of proficiency expected from registrants. It noted that administration of IV Glucose should be a last resort, not the first resort, given the risks it poses to the patient. This was an extremely serious case of professional misconduct.

Particular 6(c) – on 17 October 2021, you drove to Maidstone Hospital instead of Medway Hospital which was closer to the patient’s address – Misconduct

183. Having administered IV Glucose to the patient, the Registrant decided not to transport the patient to the local hospital but rather to take him to a specialist stroke unit. The patient record demonstrates no rationale for this course of action other than slurring of speech, which his colleague and the patient’s family told the Panel was normal for the patient following an earlier stroke.

184. RS also told the Panel that when deciding where to take the patient for treatment, the Registrant considered the location of the available hospitals and how the choice of hospital would impact upon rest of the Registrant’s shift. His decision to transport the patient to the specialist stroke unit meant a longer journey for the patient and his family but ensured that the Registrant was working on his own “patch”. The Panel found that the Registrant, when talking to his crewmate as to which hospital to drive to, appeared to recognise that this was not necessarily the most appropriate hospital as he told her that they would “wing it” and “sell” it as a stroke.

185. In the absence of any rationale on the patient record form as to why the Registrant chose to transport the patient to the specialist stroke unit, and the evidence of MS that the Registrant did not want to go to the more local hospital as a result of the impact that would have upon him, the Panel concluded that the Registrant chose to transport the patient to Maidstone Hospital for his own purpose and convenience. There was no medical justification evident from the patient care record which supported the decision of the Registrant.

186. The Panel considers that the decision of the Registrant to transport the Registrant to Maidstone was in breach of paragraphs 1, 6.2 and 9.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2014), and paragraphs 2 and 9 of the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014).

Particular 6(d) – on 17 October 2021, you pre-alerted Maidstone Hospital and informed them the patient had a stroke when they had not – Misconduct

187. Having decided to take the patient to Maidstone, the Panel determined that the Registrant proceeded under blue lights and pre-alerted the hospital that he was bringing in a stroke patient without a genuine belief that this was the case. The Panel was mindful that pre-alerting the hospital would ensure that the hospital was ready to receive the Registrant’s patient, and the Registrant would be able to get the patient into the hospital more quickly, and therefore also leave the hospital more quickly for his own purposes.

188. The Panel could identify no medical reason to justify transporting the patient to Maidstone hospital rather than Medway hospital, which was closer to the patient’s home and family. It was however aware of a reason why the Registrant preferred to take the patient to Maidstone. It was therefore satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in this regard amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Particular 7(a) – on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you raised your voice to and / or shouted at Person B when asked to wear your face mask correctly – Misconduct

189. Given the medical history of Patient C, and the experiences of Person B in caring for Patient C, the Panel did not consider their request that the Registrant wear his face mask correctly to be inappropriate. RS confirmed that the Registrant was frustrated and irritated during the attendance upon Patient C, and that his communication was inappropriate. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s behaviour and approach to Patient C and Person B was far below that which would have been expected of a registered professional. It found that the Registrant’s conduct breached paragraphs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 6.1 and 9.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and amounted to misconduct.

Particular 7(b) – on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you asked Person B in a raised voice “why have we been called”, or words to that effect – Misconduct

190. The Panel found the Registrant’s conduct in respect of this Particular amounted to misconduct for the same reasons as set out in relation to Particular 7(a).

Particular 7(c) – on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you said “that’s you saying that”, or words to that effect when shown Patient C’s Do Not Attempt Resuscitation and Power of Attorney – Misconduct

191. The Panel found the Registrant’s conduct in respect of this Particular amounted to misconduct for the same reasons as set out in relation to Particular 7(a).

Particular 7(d) – on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you put your face and / or chest close to Person C – Misconduct

192. Person C told the Panel that the Registrant used his size and proximity to her to intimidate her when she asked him why her had pre-alerted a patient to Daventry hospital. Her description of the Registrant’s attitude to her was consistent with the descriptions provided by other witnesses – aggressive, intimidating, patronising, unjustified and inappropriate.

193. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct towards a fellow professional colleague amounted to professional misconduct.

Particular 7(e) – on 18 October 2021, you did not communicate professionally, in that you said to Person C “You don’t know what you are talking about, you don’t know what I do” or words to that effect – Misconduct

194. For the same reasons as set out at 7(d), the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant was unprofessional in his communication with Person C.

195. Given the findings of the Panel in relation to the above Particulars,
the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct, individually and collectively, did meet the threshold of serious professional misconduct. It considered it to be a basic tenet of the profession that regulated professionals are able to communicate effectively with patients, relatives and their colleagues. Further, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had prioritised his own convenience over the best interests of his patients and their families. He also displayed a complete disregard for his colleagues by his inappropriate comments and dismissal of their contributions to the care of their patients on multiple occasions.

 

Decision on Impairment

196. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and had not engaged throughout the regulatory and disciplinary process following the identification of concerns as to his conduct and practice. He therefore provided no evidence as to his current fitness to practise to assist the Panel, despite cooperation with the regulator being a fundamental requirement of regulated professionals.

197. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that it should address the four questions posed in the fifth report of the Shipman inquiry as to whether the Registrant has:

a. acted in way which poses a risk or harm to patients and / or is he liable to do so in future?

b. brought the profession into disrepute and / or are they liable to do so in future?

c. breached fundamental tenets of the profession and or is he liable to do so in the future?

d. acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future?

The question of impairment is therefore forward-looking in respect of the present situation and current and future risk.

198. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel of the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment and the need to take account of both the personal and public components. He also referred the Panel to the principles identified in the case of Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283 (Admin) in respect of the issue of insight and its impact upon the assessment current fitness to practise.

199. In respect of the personal component of impairment, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel may wish to consider the CV of the Registrant as evidence of a long career as a paramedic. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant talked of 34 years in practice and that witness JA was positive about the Registrant when he commenced employment with WAS. However, the primary regulatory function is the protection of the public and declaring and upholding proper standards to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Presenting Officer submitted that each of these aspects were directly engaged in relation to the facts found proved.

200. The question for the Panel in respect of the personal component of impairment is whether the acts or omissions are remediable, have been remedied and or are likely to be repeated. The Presenting Officer submitted that there was no evidence of any remedial action being taken by the Registrant, and in the absence of that, he invited the Panel to consider that the conduct had not been remedied. He added that attitudinal misconduct, by its nature, carries a high risk of repetition in the absence of any reflection or remediation.

201. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that it identified the Registrant’s behaviour in respect of Particular 3 as highly inappropriate, falling far below that expected from a registered professional. He submitted that serious remediation would be needed of such a serious matter. Further, the administration of IV Glucose had been classified by the Panel as reckless and amounting to serious professional misconduct, which the public would not expect from a registered professional. It posed a serious risk of harm. Given these findings, the Presenting Officer suggested that public confidence would be undermined if a finding of public impairment was not made.

202. In conclusion, the Presenting Officer told the Panel that the lack of engagement, recognition and remediation by the Registrant, as well as the direct breach of professional standards meant he had fallen short of the conduct expected of him and remained currently impaired.

203. The Panel received, accepted and applied the legal advice provided, and
had regard to the information provided in the bundle of documents for the hearing. It reminded itself that the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense in relation to the need to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise, and that this cannot be achieved without taking account of the way a person has acted or failed to act in the past. It also recognised that the purpose of the regulatory proceedings is not to punish the Registrant. It had regard to the practice note published by the HCPTS entitled Fitness to Practise Impairment.

204. The Panel was mindful that a finding of impairment does not automatically follow a finding that the facts proved amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct – it could properly conclude that the misconduct was an isolated incident and that the chance of repetition in the future is remote. It also noted the guidance in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] that it must be highly relevant when determining impairment that the conduct leading to the allegation is easily remediable, has been remedied and is highly unlikely to be repeated as well as the “critically important public policy issues” identified in that case.

205. In the Panel’s view, there was no information before it in respect of the Registrant’s current insight into his conduct – it did not consider a CV submitted to WAS in advance of the Registrant commencing employment to be relevant in respect of the assessment of insight, remorse and remediation some five years later. This lack of up-to-date information to assess current impairment was, in the Panel’s view, a direct result of the Registrant voluntarily absenting himself from the regulatory proceedings.

206. The concerns raised in respect of the Registrant were serious in the Panel’s view, but potentially remediable for a registrant who accepted their shortcomings and was prepared to address them. However, the Registrant appeared to have made no attempt to remediate his conduct or have any desire to do so. Instead, he appears to have disengaged from the profession, informing the Hearings Officer via email on 29 April 2025 “can you just take me off the register i wont be coming back to work”. [sic]

207. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel found that there was a very high risk that the misconduct it identified would be repeated. The Registrant had not expressed any remorse and there was no evidence that he was aware of, or understood, the impact his conduct could have upon the public, his patients and his colleagues. He had also not supplied any reflections upon his practice, notwithstanding the obligation on him to maintain his skills and practice whilst registered. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component of impairment.

208. In considering the public component of impairment, the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues, particularly the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Whilst the Panel had not been informed that the Registrant’s conduct had caused any direct physical harm to a patient or their family, it could have done so, particularly in respect of being asleep when on duty and applying last resort treatment as the first resort in respect of the IV Glucose. His tendency to transport patients and crew members inappropriately under blue lights without any clinical justification would also have put colleagues, patients and other road users at a real risk of harm.

209. It was clear to the Panel that the Registrant’s conduct adversely impacted patients, their families, his colleagues and other professionals, causing them distress and frustration. This was particularly impactful in autumn 2020 given the context of the global Covid pandemic and resultant lock downs which exerted a particularly heavy strain on many patients, their care givers and the professionals who treated them. His aggressive demeanour and invasion of the personal space of individuals also had a direct impact upon the wellbeing of Colleague A, Person B (in her home), Patient C (in her home) and Person C at the very least.

210. The Panel was also concerned that the Registrant’s inappropriate comments and behaviour would have contributed to a toxic work environment at WAS and elsewhere. The Registrant clearly did not value the views of his colleagues and proceeded as he wished regardless of policies or guidelines. Colleague A requested not to work with the Registrant and colleague MO-T had to report to WAS that the Registrant had abandoned a patient transported for dialysis.

211. The Panel was satisfied that the public needed to be protected from the unprofessional acts of the Registrant, which it found to be inappropriate across a wide range of issues. Further, members of the public and members of the profession, knowing all of the facts, would be very concerned to learn of the conduct displayed by the Registrant, which it considered breached fundamental tenets of the profession, the standards set by the HCPC and national guidelines (JRCALC). They would be particularly concerned at the Registrant choosing the care pathway for patients that best suited his personal preferences rather than the needs of the patient.

212. It may be said that the Registrant repeatedly, knowingly and wrongly pre-alerting receiving hospitals about patients may have benefited those patients, in that they were offloaded from the ambulance and their care transferred to the hospital more quickly than they would have been had they been subject to triage. However, the wrongful classification of patients did, as Person C informed the Panel, have an impact on the care of existing patients at the receiving hospital, and those patients awaiting admission to the hospital in other ambulances and as walk-in patients. This in turn, would also adversely impact upon the Registrant’s colleagues.

213. The Panel determined that public and professional trust and confidence in the profession, professional standards, and the regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment on the public component was not made in these circumstances.

214. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public and private aspect of impairment for the reasons set out above.

 

Decision on Sanction

215. The Presenting Officer submitted that the HCPC remains neutral in relation to the issue of sanction, therefore it was a matter for the Panel to determine. He referred the Panel to the sanctions guidance and outlined the options available to the Panel. He reminded the Panel that it should work up the steps of sanction available, taking account of the issue of proportionality, to determine the minimum sanction necessary to protect the public. He also reminded the Panel that paragraph 130 of the sanctions guidance identifies that the sanction of strike off is a last resort for serious, persistent and deliberate acts.

216. The Presenting Officer suggested that mitigating features of this case were that the Registrant was of previous good character with no adverse regulatory findings against him in a long career as a paramedic. He also stated that there had been some positive remarks made in relation to the Registrant’s contribution to the workplace. In terms of aggravating features, the Presenting Officer submitted that these included:

a. Lack of remediation and insight;

b. The high risk of repetition identified by the Panel;

c. Harm had been identified by the Panel in respect of Colleague A, Person B and Patient C;

d. An element of the misconduct had been found by the Panel to be sexual in nature.

217. The Panel accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public and promote the wider public interest. The public interest includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 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.

218. The Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy adopted by HCPC and took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer. It identified the following aggravating factors in relation to the Registrant’s conduct:

a. the misconduct amounted, on a number of occasions, to a breach of the trust between paramedics, patients, their families and colleagues, particularly in respect of the conduct displayed to vulnerable patients and their families in their homes;

b. there was a pattern of repeated unacceptable behaviour over a period of months from the Registrant, particularly in respect of the comments about Person A and showing a picture of her, and taking patients to treatment facilities that were more suited to the Registrant than the patient’s needs;

c. the Registrant repeatedly prioritised his own interest over those of the patients or his colleagues, including proceeding under blue lights and pre-alerting without clinical justification;

d. a service user was put at risk of substantial harm thorough the Registrant’s treatment choice by failing to provide food or fast acting carbohydrates before choosing to provide IV glucose;

e. the Registrant was dishonest in his interactions with patients, their families, colleagues and the public, particularly when driving with blue lights and pre-alerting without clinical justification.

219. The Panel was unable to identify any mitigating features in this case apart from the previously unblemished record of the Registrant.

220. Given the serious and wide-ranging nature of the misconduct committed by the Registrant, and his failure to provide evidence of remorse, insight and remediation, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to take no action or impose a caution order. It was mindful that the Sanctions Policy confirms that while a finding of impairment means that there are concerns about a registrant’s current ability to practise safely and effectively, there may be instances in which taking no action is the appropriate and proportionate outcome, such as when there is no risk to the public, or to public confidence in the profession, in taking no action. Taking no action or imposing a Caution Order in this instance would be inappropriate and insufficient in the circumstances. The Panel was concerned that, in the absence of any insight, remorse or remediation, the conduct could be repeated. It also noted that Caution Orders should be considered where the Allegation means that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a conditions of practice order would be disproportionate. This was not such a case.

221. Whilst the misconduct arose from the Registrant’s professional conduct in the workplace, the Panel did not consider that a conditions of practice order was appropriate or afforded an appropriate level of protection to the public. It observed that the Registrant displayed no awareness of the inappropriate nature of his misconduct, having apparently comprehensively disengaged from the profession. He displayed no insight or remorse for the impact of his conduct upon his patients, their families, his colleagues or the profession. The Panel was not able to formulate any conditions which would protect the public, remedy the concerns, which were attitudinal in nature, or restore public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Further, it had no information as to the Registrant’s current employment situation, and no indication that the Registrant wished to rejoin his profession in the future or would cooperate with conditions imposed upon his practice. Accordingly, the Panel determined that it would not be appropriate to impose conditions upon the Registrant’s practice.

222. The Panel then gave careful consideration to the imposition of a suspension order, which could send a signal to the Registrant, the profession and the public re-affirming the standards expected of a registered Paramedic. The Panel was cognisant that it had no information as to the Registrant’s current employment position and that the Registrant had chosen to absent himself from the regulatory proceedings. There was no information before the Panel as to how the Registrant had maintained his professional skills or remediated the concerns identified and no indication that he had any desire to return to the profession, particularly given the contents of the Registrant’s email of 29 April 2025. It could not therefore find that the Registrant would adequately, or at all, address the concerns it identified.

223. Further, the Panel considered that imposing a suspension would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, which appeared to be largely motivated by the Registrant’s own self-interest. The Panel therefore concluded that a suspension order would not mark the seriousness of the concerns it identified in this case.

224. The Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose in this case is that of a Striking-off Order. The conduct of the Registrant was fundamentally incompatible with that expected of a registered professional. He had repeatedly breached fundamental tenets of the profession and showed no evidence of remediating his attitude to his profession, patients, colleagues and the public. In the absence of any insight, remediation, remorse or apology from the Registrant, removal from the Register was, in the Panel’s view, the only sanction that would adequately protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulator.

225. The Registrant has chosen not to engage with the regulatory hearing and the Panel therefore had no information as to the impact making such an order would have upon him. However, it was satisfied that the removal was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and the need to protect the public outweighed the impact upon the Registrant.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Matthew Burns from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. Upon the Panel determining the appropriate sanction to be removal from the Register, the Presenting Officer confirmed he intended to apply for an Interim Order.

2. The Presenting Officer sought an interim suspension order to cover the period before the removal order takes effect, and the appeal period.

3. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor and was invited to consider the guidance on interim orders following a substantive order as contained within the Sanctions Policy. The Panel also took account of the Practice Note in relation to Interim Orders.

 

Decision

4. The Panel was satisfied the Registrant was aware of the hearing and on notice that an Interim Order could be applied for as this was contained within the Notice of Hearing dated 22 May 2025. It was satisfied that the reasons provided for proceeding in absence at the start of the hearing remained applicable and was content to consider the application for an interim order in the absence of the Registrant.

5. Given that the findings of the Panel in relation to the serious misconduct on the part of Registrant, the aggravating features of the same and the risk posed to the public which led it to conclude that a removal order was the only appropriate way of adequately safeguarding the public, the Panel was satisfied that an interim order pursuant to Article 31 of the Order is necessary and proportionate given the serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s conduct and the fact that public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis pending expiry of the appeal period. The Panel was conscious that the imposition of an interim order may have a detrimental impact upon the Registrant, but considered the order to be appropriate in the circumstances.

6. The Panel considered that this order should be imposed for a period of 18 months, noting it will fall away in the event that no appeal is lodged to the substantive order of removal.

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.

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 Matthew Burns

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
21/07/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
24/06/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
01/04/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
06/12/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
25/06/2024	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
19/03/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
15/12/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
08/09/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
09/03/2023	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Application	Interim Suspension