
Mr Ryan Priest
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA055173):
1. On 4 July 2023, you acted in a sexual manner towards Colleague A in that you:
a) discussed your personal life and/or told Colleague A that you seek “sexual satisfaction elsewhere” or words to that effect.
b) asked Colleague A “if they had ever slept with anyone while on shift, on station or in the truck”, or words to that effect.
c) told Colleague A the location of ambulance stations where you claimed to have had sex.
d) said to Colleague A “you could easily sleep with someone at [ambulance station location] and get away with it” or words to that effect.
e) asked if Colleague A “would at all push their boundaries for you”, or words to that effect.
f) told Colleague A “I think I can change your mind by the end of this shift” or words to that effect.
g) told Colleague A “you’re a challenge I don’t often get turned down” or words to that effect.
h) said to Colleague A “your breasts look massive” or words to that effect.
i) said to Colleague A, about their breasts, “I wouldn’t mind if they got in my way” or words to that effect.
j) touched Colleague A’s arm and/or asked if this “was pushing [their] boundaries”, or words to that effect.
k) squeezed Colleague A’s bottom.
l) asked Colleague A, “would you do other things on the station but not sex?”, or words to that effect.
m) placed your arm around Colleague A and/or tapped their neck.
n) said to Colleague A, “when I arrived at the start of the shift all I wanted to do was sleep with you”, or words to that effect.
o) said to Colleague A, “did [your] boundaries include after shift hours? We could have sex in my car before I drop you off”, or words to that effect.
p) poked Colleague A in the ribs.
q) said Colleague A’s photograph on social media, “didn’t look like [them] but it was just as attractive” or words to that effect.
r) reached around Colleague A’s body, while stood behind them, to pass them a Pulse Oximeter (SATs) probe.
s) you followed Colleague A into the female toilets.
t) said how there was “enough room [in the toilet] to have sex”, or words to that effect.
2. Your conduct at Particular 1 was sexually motivated.
3. The matters set out in Particulars 1 and/or 2 above constitute misconduct.
4. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired
by reason of misconduct.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was provided with an unredacted service bundle which included a copy of the Notice of Hearing dated 21 May 2025 sent to the Registrant’s registered email address. The Notice of Hearing included details of the date, time and mode of hearing. Having taken legal advice, the Panel found good service had been effected.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. Mr Donnelly, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application under rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2023 for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant”.
4. The Panel noted the correspondence from a solicitor previously acting on behalf of the Registrant and from the Registrant himself as follows:
• E-mail dated 18 January 2025 from Registrant’s former legal representative advising that neither the Registrant nor his legal representative would attend any hearing as the Registrant has “pressing domestic and financial matters that prevent him from being away from his current employment for such a length of time”
• E-mail dated 6 July 2025 from the Registrant to Blake Morgan (solicitors on behalf of the HCPC), advising that he was unable to attend the hearing due to his work;
• E-mail dated 7 July 2025 from the Registrant to Blake Morgan, advising that he was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence;
• Email dated 8 July 2025 from the Registrant to the Hearings Officer confirming that he was unable to attend the hearing and did not have anything further to add.
5. Having considered the circumstances of the Registrant’s absence, the Panel considered that his absence was voluntary and that he had waived his right to attend. The Registrant had not requested an adjournment and the Panel considered that an adjournment would serve no purpose. The Panel acknowledged that there might be a disadvantage to the Registrant in not attending the hearing, but it considered that his interests was outweighed by the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the hearing. The Panel also took into account the interests of the four witnesses who were due to attend the hearing to give their evidence to the Panel.
6. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.
Hearing in private
7. Mr Donnelly did not make an application for any part of the hearing to be heard in private. He acknowledged that there were references in the documents to details of the Registrant’s health, but indicated that he did not intend to make any reference to these details.
8. The Panel noted Mr Donnelly’s submissions, and indicated that if any issues arose within the hearing which might indicate that part of the hearing should be heard in private, this would be addressed by the Chair of the Panel or the Legal Assessor.
9. During the evidence of Ms Owen reference was made to details of the Registrant’s health and the Panel decided that this part of the hearing should be heard in private to protect the Registrant’s private life.
Exclusion of evidence
10. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the principles drawn from the case of Enemuwe v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 2081 that conclusions on facts made in other investigations are not admissible evidence and that the Panel should therefore disregard and exclude from its mind any factual conclusions reached within investigations carried outby the Registrant’s former employer, whether or not those conclusions have been redacted.
11. The Panel accepted this advice and entirely excluded from its consideration of the disputed facts any opinions or conclusions of the Registrant’s former employer.
Legal advice and the Panel’s consideration of whether to amend the Allegation
12. During its deliberations on the facts the Panel considered the wording of Particular 1(s) in light of the evidence it had heard from Colleague A.
13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has the power, of its own motion, to make an amendment to the Allegation at any stage up to the finding of facts, as confirmed in the case of Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319. The Panel should consider whether the proposed amendment would create any unfairness for the Registrant, who has not had notice of any amendment.
14. The Panel invited comments or submissions from Mr Donnelly. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Donnelly did not invite the Panel to amend the Allegation given the requirement of fairness to the Registrant and that it would not make a difference given the context of the remainder of the particulars.
15. The Panel decided not to exercise its discretion to amend the Particular 1(s). It agreed with Mr Donelly’s submission that particular 1(s), considered in isolation, was not of such significance that it would materially alter any of the decisions or assessments which might be undertaken by the Panel. The Panel also took into account the requirement of fairness to the Registrant, who has not been notified of a proposed amendment.
16. In all the circumstances the Panel decided not to exercise its discretion to amend paragraph 1(s).
Background
17. At all relevant times the Registrant was employed as a Paramedic with the London Ambulance Service (LAS).
18. On 4 July 2023 the Registrant was allocated to work a shift from around 13:00 to 01:00 hours based out of the Whipps Cross Ambulance Station. The Registrant was crewed up during the shift with Colleague A, a Paramedic.
19. During the shift Colleague A alleges that the Registrant acted in a sexually inappropriate manner towards her as particularised in allegation 1.
20. Towards the end of the shift Colleague A stated that she sought assistance from Colleague B to help her leave the workplace without any further contact with Colleague A.
21. Almost immediately after the end of her shift Colleague A contacted an LAS Clinical Team Leader (CTM) and subsequently sent an email at 03:38 hours on 5 July 2023 detailing the events.
22. Colleague A subsequently met with an LAS Clinical Team Manager and drafted a more detailed statement of the events of her shift.
23. The LAS undertook an investigation which was led by Philip Crafer, Group Manager of LAS. The investigation included interviews held with the Registrant, Colleague A, and Collegue B. An investigation report was produced dated 14 August 2023.
24. On 16 October 2023 a disciplinary meeting (Formal Resolution Meeting) was held chaired by Becky Owen Associate Director of Operations LAS. On 18 December 2023 an appeal hearing was held chaired by Damian McGuiness Chief People Officer LAS of Persons. An appeal outcome letter was sent to the Registrant on 22 December 2023.
Evidence
25. The Panel was provided with a hearing bundle which included witness statements, a copy of the LAS investigation report dated 14 August 2023, and a copy of written representations dated 10 June 2024 made by the Registrant to the Investigating Committee.
26. The Panel heard oral evidence from the following HCPC witnesses:
(a) Colleague A, a Paramedic employed by LAS. She adopted her witness statement signed on 9 November 2024 and gave direct evidence about each of the events during the shift on 4-5 July 2023. Colleague A regarded herself as senior to the Registrant due to her greater experience.
(b) Colleague B, a Paramedic employed by LAS and a colleague and friend of Colleague A. She adopted her witness statement signed on 22 November 2024.
(c) Mr Crafer, Group Manager of LAS. He adopted his witness statement signed on 14 October 2024.
(d) Ms Owen, Associate Director of Operations at LAS. She adopted her witness statement dated 4 December 2024.
Decision on Facts
27. The Panel accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was advised that the standard of proof in HCPTS proceedings is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof in respect of the factual matters was upon the HCPC.
28. The Panel noted that the Registrant is of good character in that there are no previous regulatory findings against him.
29. The Panel was reminded that Particular 2 alleged that the conduct alleged in Particular 1 was sexually motivated. The Panel was advised that if it found the facts in Particular 1 proved, it should then go on to consider whether that proven conduct was sexually motivated.
30. The Panel was referred to the case of Basson v GMC EWHC 505 (Admin). In Basson, it was said that a sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.
31. It was also stated in the case of Basson that the state of a person’s mind is not a matter that can be proved by direct observation, but only by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence. This was a balancing exercise in which the Panel should consider all the evidence and the circumstances, including the facts, the history, any alternative explanation offered by the Registrant and any evidence as to the Registrant’s character. The Panel must then, on the balance of probabilities, consider whether the sexual motive can reasonably be inferred from all the evidence.
32. The Panel was also referred to the case of Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA 763. In Haris it was said that the best evidence of a registrant’s motivation is their behaviour. If the conduct is overtly sexual in nature, the absence of a plausible, innocent explanation for the conduct will invariably result in a finding of sexual motivation.
33. The Panel considered the factual particulars against the above background.
34. The only direct witnesses to the alleged events were Colleague A and the Registrant himself.
35. The Panel found that Colleague A was a credible witness. She had reported her concerns about the Registrant’s behaviour to Colleague B, while on her shift and in a conversation after the shift at a restaurant. Within a few hours from the end of her shift at approximately 3 a.m. the Registrant spoke to her Clinical Team Leader and wrote an e-mail outlining her concerns. Her written formal statement was prepared the following day.
36. There were some minor errors or inconsistencies in the Registrant’s statements which the Registrant corrected within the LAS investigation and in her evidence to the Panel. Examples of these errors were:
• In the LAS investigation Colleague A corrected her initial statement that the Registrant followed her into the bathroom at Walthamstow station. Colleague A clarified that the Registrant walked into the bathroom ahead of her and she confirmed this in her evidence to the Panel.
• In her HCPC witness statement Colleague A stated that she “blocked” the Registrant on Facebook. In her oral evidence she clarified that she had not blocked the Registrant, but had deleted him as a “friend”. This was consistent with her formal statement in the LAS investigation.
37. The Panel did not find that any error or minor inconsistency undermined Colleague A’s credibility. It accepted that such errors and the need for correction of details is not uncommon, and that Colleague A has been consistent throughout in her description of the core allegations.
38. The Panel found Colleague A’s account of the shift and the sequence of events to be plausible. She described persistent verbal and physical behaviour from the Registrant and her own responses to this behaviour. She described that she referred to her own boundaries, moved away from the Registrant, and did not reciprocate his sexual comments. In the LAS investigation Colleague A requested the investigator obtain CCTV footage. While such footage could not be obtained, Colleague A’s request indicates that she was expecting the footage to corroborate her account.
39. The Panel noted that Colleague A had never met the Registrant and had no ulterior motive to make a false complaint. The Panel found no evidence that Colleague A had any hostility towards the Registrant.
40. The Panel was not provided with a narrative account of the events from the Registrant. In the LAS investigation he denied that he had acted inappropriately. He stated that there was what he described as “banter” and “jokes”, but he did not describe the content of such banter or jokes. The Registrant stated that he struggled with “boundaries”. He said that he had entered the female bathroom at Walthamstow Station, although he said that he had done so accidentally. When he was first stood down from duties and had no information about the nature of the allegation, he pre-empted the concerns stating that “he can sometimes be over flirtatious with people and this maybe the root of the allegation”.
41. [Redacted]
42. The Registrant’s description in his LAS interview of a joking friendly relationship with Colleague A throughout the shift was entirely inconsistent with Colleague A’s actions toward the end of the shift in avoiding contact with the Registrant and seeking assistance from Colleague B to ensure that she would not be in a car alone with the Registrant. The Registrant’s description is also inconsistent with Colleague A’s actions in immediately reporting the events to her Clinical Team Leader. The Panel found that the Registrant’s limited description of the shift lacked credibility, and it preferred Colleague A’s account.
43. The Panel has dealt with the allegations sequentially as set out within Particular 1, and the findings therefore do not follow the chronological sequence of events described by Colleague A. In respect of each of the comments found proved, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had used the phrase recalled by Colleague A, or words to that effect.
Particular 1(a) – found proved
44. The Panel found particular 1(a) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. Colleague A prepared her formal statement within a day or two of the end of her shift with the Registrant. While on route to Walthamstow ambulance station the Registrant spoke about his wedding and stated that he did not find his fiancée sexually satisfying and that he had to seek this elsewhere.
Particular 1(b) – found proved
45. The Panel found particular 1(b) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In the same conversation as the comment in particular 1(a) the Registrant asked
11
Colleague A “have you every slept with someone on station or an ambulance”.
Particular 1(c) – found proved
46. The Panel found particular 1(c) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In the same conversation as the comment in particular 1(a) the Registrant listed stations where he said he had sex, including Poplar and Ilford.
Particular 1(d) – found proved
47. The Panel found particular 1(d) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. When walking into Walthamstow Station at around 19.45 the Registrant stated, “you could easily sleep with someone at J4 and get away with it”. The reference to J4 is to Walthamstow Station.
Particular 1(e) – found proved
48. The Panel found particular 1(e) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her initial e-mail to her Clinical Team Leader. In the same conversation as the comment in particular 1(a) the Registrant asked if Colleague A would “push my boundaries” (referring to Colleague A’s boundaries), for him.
Particular 1(f)
49. The Panel found particular 1(g) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In the same conversation as the comment in particular 1(a), the Registrant stated, “I think I can change your mind by the end of the shift”.
Particular 1(g) – found proved
50. The Panel found particular 1(g) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In the same conversation as the comment in particular 1(a) and 1(f), the Registrant had responded that she did not think that the Registrant could change her mind, to which the Registrant replied, “You’re a challenge I don’t often get turned down”.
Particular 1(h) – found proved
51. The Panel found particular 1(h) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In a conversation later in the shift after completing a job at Whipps Cross hospital and returning to the ambulance the Registrant stated that “your breasts (or chest) look massive”.
Particular 1(i) – found proved
52. The Panel found particular 1(i) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. In the same conversation referred to in particular (h) the Registrant stated, in relation to the Registrant’s breasts, “I wouldn’t mind if they go in my way”.
Particular 1(j) – found proved
53. The Panel found particular 1(j) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. Colleague A and the Registrant attended Walthamstow station to use the facilities. The incident took place during a conversation between the Registrant and Colleague 4 about a box of food which was on the table. The Registrant was standing to the right side of Colleague A. The Registrant touched Colleague A’s right arm and Colleague A moved away from him. The photographs of the table and surrounding area which were included in the LAS investigation report demonstrated that there was ample space around the table and no need for the Registrant to have any physical contact with Colleague A.
Particular 1(k) – found proved
54. The Panel found particular 1(k) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. The incident was described by Colleague A as occurring soon after the incident in particular 1(j). After Colleague A had moved away from the Registrant, he moved to the back of her and squeezed her right buttock. In his interview as part of the LAS investigation the Registrant suggested that any contact that took place was accidental and unintentional. The Panel did not accept this explanation. It was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the physical contact was deliberate because there was sufficient space around the table as shown in the photographs, accidental contact could not include squeezing of Colleague A’s buttock, and Colleague A’s immediate response was to say to the Registrant “that’s pushed my boundaries”.
Particular 1(l)- found proved
55. The Panel found particular 1(l) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. Colleague A described that after the incident described in 1(k) the Registrant had moved to the noticeboard area and he asked Colleague A “Would you do other things on the station but not sex”. Colleague A replied that she would not.
Particular 1(m) – found proved
56. The Panel found particular 1(m) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. This incident occurred in a patient’s home and in the LAS investigation Colleague A provided a diagram to indicate the respective position of each party within the room. Colleague A was sitting on a sofa speaking to the child patient and her mother who were sitting on a different sofa. The Registrant came and sat very close to Colleague A on the sofa and stretched his arm along the back of the sofa behind Colleague A’s back. Colleague A felt the Registrant lean forward and tap the nape of her neck on three occasions. Colleague A responded to this contact by moving and leaning forward on the sofa so that any contact from the Registrant would be visible to others in the room.
Particular 1(n) – found proved
57. The Panel found particular 1(n) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her formal statement for the LAS investigation. After the incident at particular 1(m) the Colleague A and the Registrant returned to the ambulance and the Registrant stated, “When I arrived at the start of the shift all I wanted to do was sleep with you”.
Particular 1(o) – found proved
58. The Panel found particular 1(o) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her statement for the LAS investigation. During the shift, at a time Colleague A could not recall, the Registrant stated “Did my [Colleague A] boundaries include after shift hours? We could have sex in my car before I drop you off”.
Particular 1(p) – found proved
59. The Panel found particular 1(p) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her statement for the LAS investigation. During one of the attendances of the ambulance at a hospital the Registrant walked behind Colleague A and poked her in the ribs with both his hands.
Particular 1(q) – found proved
60. The Panel found particular 1(q) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her statement for the LAS investigation. Following the incident in particular 1(p) the Registrant brought up Colleague A’s Facebook profile and sent a friend request. Colleague A accepted the request, with the intention of deleting it after the shift. The Registrant stated, in relation to Colleague A’s profile picture that it “didn’t look like [Colleague A] but it was just as attractive”.
Particular 1(r) – found proved
61. The Panel found particular 1(r) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her statement for the LAS investigation. This incident occurred at Whipps Cross hospital during the last job undertaken by Colleague A and the Registrant. The nurse requested that Colleague A completed a set of observations on the patient. Colleague A stood in front of the patient and attached the blood pressure cuff. The Registrant moved behind her and passed the sats probe between his own hands in front of Colleague A’s body while standing behind her. There was no requirement for him to do so because there was ample space in the vicinity.
Particular 1(s) – found not proved
62. The Panel found that the HCPC has not discharged the burden of proof. In her statement to the Panel Colleague A stated that the Registrant walked into the female bathroom ahead of her. In her oral evidence she clarified that the Registrant was ahead of her and held the door to the bathroom open for her. The Panel accepted Colleague A’s evidence and was not satisfied that the Registrant had “followed” Colleague A.
Particular 1(t) – found proved
63. The Panel found particular 1(t) proved by the evidence of Colleague A, including her statement for the LAS investigation. This incident took place at Walthamstow station in the female bathroom. The Registrant stated, “you could get away with sleeping with someone in here – there is enough space”.
64. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had acted in a “sexual manner” in respect of each of the sub-particulars found proved. The Panel considered the proven sub-particulars individually and collectively and within their context. They involved comments made by the Registrant relating to sexual activity and the potential for such activity with Colleague A, Colleague A’s boundaries (in the context of discussions about sexual activity), and comments about Colleague A’s body. The conduct also included physical touching, which was intentional, unnecessary and was not accidental. In the absence of any plausible explanation for the touching, the Panel inferred that each proven incident of the Registrant’s physical touching of Colleague A was “sexual”.
Particular 2
65. The Panel referred to the guidance on allegations of sexually motivated conduct in the HCPTS Practice Not “Making Decisions on a Registrant’s State of Mind”.
66. In its conclusions on particular 1 the Panel found that the Registrant’s acted in a “sexual manner”. Some of the conduct was overtly sexual in nature or directly referred to sex, and the Panel inferred from the context that the remainder of the conduct found proved was sexual in nature. The Panel has rejected the explanations put forward by the Registrant. It rejected the explanation that the conduct amounted to no more than agreeable friendly banter between colleagues, because this was entirely inconsistent with Colleague A’s behaviour at the end of and immediately after the shift. It rejected the Registrant’s explanation that the physical touching was accidental because of the nature of the contact and the absence of any requirement for the close proximity between Colleague A and the Registrant.
67. [Redacted]. Colleague A’s responses to the Registrant were clear and explicit that she had no interest in the sexual topics he wished to discuss, but the Registrant persisted in his conduct. Moreover, the Registrant’s comment in particular 1(f) “I think I can change your mind by the end of this shift” demonstrated that the Registrant had a good understanding of Colleague A’s position and chose to persist with his behaviour, notwithstanding her responses that she had no interest.
68. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s comments, considered as a whole, indicated that he was attracted to Colleague A.
69. The Panel inferred that the Registrants proven conduct in Particular 1 was in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Colleague A.
Decision on Grounds
70. Mr Donelly submitted that the Panel should find the ground of misconduct established. His submissions included reference to the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics, particularly Standards 1.9, 1.12, 2.8 and 9.1. Mr Donelly submitted that the breaches of standards were of sufficient seriousness to constitute misconduct.
71. The Panel accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Professional Boundaries”.
72. The Panel first considered whether the Registrants conduct amounted to a breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.
73. It considered that the conduct amounted to a breach of the following standards:
1.9 You must take action to set and maintain appropriate professional boundaries with service users, carers and colleagues
1.12 You must not abuse your position as a health and care practitioner to pursue personal, sexual, emotional or financial relationships with service users, carers or colleagues.
2.8 You must treat your colleagues in a professional manner showing them respect and consideration
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
74. The Panel considered that there were a number of aggravating factors relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct.
75. The Registrant’s conduct caused emotional harm to Colleague A. In his submissions Mr Donnelly described Colleague A as “stoic”. Despite her relatively robust personality, the Registrant was so concerned about the Registrant’s behaviour during the shift on 4 July 2023 that she sought assistance from Colleague B so that she would not have to spend time alone with the Registrant and would not travel with him in his car. Colleague B described Colleague A as not being her “normal bubbly self” and that she was “shaken”. Colleague B also recalled that her crewmate, who knew nothing about what had happened, asked if Colleague A was OK because she looked upset. After speaking to her parents about the incident Colleague A was upset due to their understandable concerns about her safety. Colleague A also engaged in counselling and completed five sessions. She has not required further assistance and Colleague A told the Panel that the incident does not currently impact on her well-being.
76. The Registrant’s conduct had the potential to impact on patient care, because of its potential to distract Colleague A from her duties and its potential to undermine effective team working. An example of that potential undermining effect in this case is that towards the end of the shift Colleague A sought to avoid spending time in the ambulance with the Registrant alone and prolonged the time she spent at hospital as long as possible. As explained in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Professional Boundaries” effective team working is vital for the health and safety of service users and their carers. In addition, the absence of team support can adversely affect the performance of health professionals and may cause them to leave the profession.
77. The Registrant’s conduct was an abuse of his professional position and showed a lack of respect and disregard for Colleague A’s dignity. He subjected her to unwanted, belittling treatment, knowing that she had no interest in his advances. He persisted in the contact, after Colleague A had informed him that his conduct (touching her buttock) did cross her boundaries. He objectified Colleague A in his pursuit of a sexual relationship.
78. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s touching of Colleague A (squeezing of the buttock) could constitute the criminal offence of sexual assault under Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Registrant intentionally touched Colleague A, the touching was sexual, Colleague A did not consent. Given the conversation that had previously taken place between the Registrant and Colleague A, the Registrant did not reasonably believe that Colleague A consented.
79. The Panel also took into account the context within which the Registrant’s conduct took place. The Registrant took advantage of the context to behave in a predatory manner. The Registrant was working alone with Colleague A on a long shift and visiting ambulance stations such as Walthamstow which were quiet and no other members of staff were or were likely to be present.
80. When considering the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct the Panel took into account that the behaviour occurred in a single shift, involved one colleague, and that Colleague A was more senior to the Registrant.
81. Having carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct was towards the higher end of the scale of seriousness of sexual misconduct.
82. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct was very serious and fell far short of the standards expected of an HCPC registered Paramedic. It had no hesitation in concluding that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.
Decision on Impairment
83. Mr Donnelly submitted that the Panel should find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component. He submitted that the Registrant had demonstrated very little insight and that there was no reassurance that there would be no repetition.
84. The Panel accepted the advice of the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.
85. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s behaviour is remediable. The behaviour is attitudinal in its nature and the Panel was of the view that it would be difficult to remedy. However, the Panel considered that conceptually such behaviour was capable of remediation, with an appropriate level of reflection, understanding of the gravity of the misconduct found proved, and demonstrable change in attitude and behaviour.
86. The Panel did not receive any submissions or evidence of remediation from the Registrant. It considered an “apology letter” that was provided by the Registrant to Colleague A in the disciplinary hearing. The letter apologised for “the upset I have caused you these past months. I had never intended for you at any stage to feel uncomfortable or upset by my actions”. The Registrant also referred in the letter to his “unintentional physical contact”. The Registrant appeared to attribute his behaviour to [Redacted], although these issues were not mentioned when he was interviewed as part of the LAS investigation. The Panel was of the view that the “apology” letter minimised the nature of the Registrant’s conduct, and was self-serving. The Registrant did not take responsibility for his actions, and the Panel’s view was that the apology letter demonstrated very little insight, beyond his acknowledgement that Colleague A was upset by his behaviour.
87. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s written representations to the Investigating Committee. These were brief. The Registrant stated that he was “very sorry for any inadvertent upset that I may have caused Colleague A”. The Registrant stated that he had tried to be self-critical and more aware of his overall behaviour.
88. The Panel acknowledged that it is possible for a Registrant to demonstrate insight, notwithstanding his denial of the Allegation, but the Panel found that insight in the circumstances of this case would require the Registrant to understand the motivations for the behaviour found proved.
89. The Registrant has not attended the hearing, and the Panel were unable to explore further the level of his understanding and insight. In the circumstances the Panel concluded that the Registrant has demonstrated very little insight. The Registrant did not present any evidence that he has undertaken remedial action. The Panel concluded that the risk of repetition is high. Therefore, there is a real risk of emotional harm to colleagues, and an indirect risk of harm to service users. The Panel concluded that the Registrant fitness to practise is currently impaired on the basis of the personal component.
90. The Panel next had regard to the need to the wider public interest considerations including the need to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Registrant’s conduct amounted to a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession, not to abuse the trust placed in him to respect his colleagues. The finding of serious sexual misconduct towards a colleague undermines the confidence and trust of public in the Registrant and in the profession and could affect their willingness to seek treatment from health professionals.
91. The Panel was of the view that an informed and reasonable member of the public would expect Paramedics to meet the basic and fundamental standard that he must not abuse his professional position by pursuing a sexual relationship with a Colleague. It would be intolerable for members of the public if the Panel were not to act to address the risk that such behaviour might be repeated.
92. The Panel considered that that three factors identified in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry as indicating current impairment are engaged in this case. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant has in the past, and is liable in the future, to represent a risk to service users, has brought the profession into disrepute, and has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession. The Panel concluded that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made in this case.
93. The Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components of impairment.
Decision on sanction
94. The Panel took account of the submissions made by Mr Donnelly on behalf of the HCPC. Mr Donnelly invited the Panel to impose a Striking Off Order.
95. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy.
96. In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful that a sanction is not intended to be punitive. However, a sanction may be necessary in the public interest, and may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind that any sanction must be proportionate, that is, it must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.
97. The Panel bore in mind that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. A panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and decide what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.
98. The Panel had found that the Registrant’s conduct was an abuse of his professional position as a Paramedic and that he breached professional boundaries with Colleague A. The Panel had found that the conduct was sexually motivated, for the purpose of the Registrant for sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Panel has also found that the Registrant’s conduct was towards the high end of the scale of sexual misconduct.
99. The Panel referred to the guidance in the HCPTS Sanctions Policy concerning serious cases. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct involved sexual misconduct, predatory behaviour, abuse of professional position, and failure to work in partnership. The Panel’s conclusion, applying the Sanctions Policy, was that the Registrant’s case clearly fell into the category of serious cases.
100. The Panel considered that the following aggravating factors were present:
• Emotional harm to Colleague A;
• Potential harm to service users;
• Abuse of the Registrant’s professional position;
• Touching of Colleague A could constitute criminal offence of Sexual Assault;
• Predatory behaviour in the context where Colleague A was working alone with the Registrant;
• Very limited insight and no evidence of remediation.
101. The Panel considered that the following mitigating factors were present:
• the absence of any previous concerns (limited weight as Registrant was in very early stages of his career);
• Conduct over a single shift;
• The Registrant’s apology (very limited weight as apology minimised conduct and demonstrated little understanding of the impact of his conduct).
102. The Panel noted the information in the Registrant’s written representations which referred to the Registrant’s personal circumstances and health issues. The Panel did not consider that the circumstances outlined by the Registrant amounted to a mitigating factor. While such factors might, in some circumstances, have an impact on judgment, the Panel did not consider that they could have contributed to the deliberate sexually motivated conduct in which the Registrant engaged during the shift on 4 July 2023.
103. The Panel concluded it could give limited weight to the mitigating factors and was mindful that mitigation is of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings where protection of the public is the overarching consideration. The Panel concluded that the gravity of the aggravating factors in this case far outweighed the mitigating factors.
104. The Panel considered the sanctions in ascending level of severity in order to ensure that its approach was proportionate.
105. The Panel decided that neither mediation nor taking no action would be appropriate. The Panel decided that due to the gravity of its findings in this case a sanction was necessary.
106. The Panel considered the factors in the Sanctions Policy in relation to a Caution Order. It concluded that the issues in this case were not minor in nature. Although the events occurred over the course of a single shift, it involved sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague. There was very limited insight and the Panel had concluded that there remained a risk of repetition and a risk of harm to service users.
107. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order was not sufficient or appropriate in the circumstances.
108. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. Given that the Registrant has not engaged with this process, the Panel did not have the required confidence in his willingness to comply with conditions of practice. The Panel was also unable to formulate conditions of practice which could address the risk that he would repeat similar sexual misconduct in his role as a Paramedic.
109. Most significantly, the Panel’s view was that conditions of practice would not reflect the gravity of the sexual misconduct findings in this case, nor would such an order address the concerns regarding the wider public interest.
110. The Panel referred to paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Policy. It was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated. These factors indicated that a conditions of practice order was not appropriate in this case.
111. The Panel carefully considered whether an order of suspension would be sufficient to protect the public and address the public interest concerns in this case.
112. The Panel referred to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The concerns represent serious breaches of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The Panel has found that the Registrant has demonstrated very limited insight and that there is a risk of repetition. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Registrant was likely to be willing or able to resolve or remedy the misconduct.
113. The Panel also had regard to the aggravating features and considered that a Suspension Order would be insufficient to uphold and maintain professional standards and to maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession.
114. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would not be sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.
115. The Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Striking Off Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 76 of the Sanctions Policy which states that sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. In this case the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was at the higher end of the scale of seriousness of sexual misconduct.
116. The Panel also considered paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy. A striking off order is the sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving sexual misconduct and for abuse of professional position.
117. The Panel also considered 131 of the Sanctions Policy. This was a case where the Registrant lacked insight. The Panel noted that the Registrant had indicated in the LAS investigation that he was willing to work with his employer, but he has not engaged with this hearing and there was nothing before the Panel to indicate he is currently willing to engage in the difficult task of remedying his misconduct.
118. Given the gravity of the Registrant’s misconduct together with the very limited insight, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s sexually motivated conduct was fundamentally incompatible with registration as a health professional on the HCPC register.
119. The Panel bore in mind the requirement that the sanction it imposes must be proportionate. The Panel was provided with no information about the Registrant’s interests, but it acknowledged that a Striking Off Order is likely to have a negative impact on the Registrant. However, the Panel concluded that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to uphold and maintain public confidence in the Paramedic profession and the regulatory process. The Panel therefore decided that the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests.
120. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate order was a Striking Off
Order
Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Ryan Priest from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.
Notes
Interim Order
121. The Panel first considered whether it was fair and appropriate to consider an application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence. The Notice of Hearing informed the Registrant that if the case is well founded the HCPC may make such an application.
122. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to proceed and hear the application in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel had in mind its conclusions on current impairment and sanction, and it decided that there was a strong public interest in considering the application which outweighed the Registrant’s interests.
123. Mr Donnelly made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for up to eighteen months, to cover the appeal period before the Sanction becomes operative and the time that any appeal might take to be concluded.
124. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and considered whether an order was necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or was in the Registrant’s own interests. It applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public.
125. The Panel considered whether to impose an interim order. In its findings on impairment the Panel concluded that there remains a risk of repetition of similar conduct and a need to protect the public from the risk of harm. The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with those earlier findings and the imposition of a Suspension Order to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order was not necessary for the protection of the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession.
126. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s interests, but decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest. The Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on public protection and public interest grounds.
127. The Panel decided that it is appropriate that the Interim Suspension Order be imposed for a period of eighteen months to cover the appeal period. When the appeal period expires, this Interim Order will come to an end unless there has been an application to appeal. If there is no appeal the substantive Suspension Order shall apply when the appeal period expires.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Ryan Priest
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
09/07/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |
03/04/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
27/09/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Application | Interim Suspension |
18/09/2024 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Application | Adjourned |