Bogdan Volindan

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 6(2) that at least 28 days’ notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant. The Registrant was in attendance at the hearing and confirmed that he had received the 66-page hearing bundle, as well as the 9-page case summary provided by the HCPC. He provided a 9-page bundle of documents to assist the Panel.

2. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing and relevant documents had been duly served upon all parties in accordance with the Rules. It was therefore content to proceed with the hearing.

Proceeding in private

3. During the course of the hearing, the Registrant alluded to matters which could be construed as relevant to his mental health. The Panel was aware of the Practice Note issued by the HCPTS in respect of “Conducting Hearings in Private” and the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the Rules, which provides that “proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

4. The Panel was satisfied, on its own initiative, that it was appropriate for it to exercise its discretion and hear any references relevant to the Registrant’s health in private. It was conscious that regulatory matters should usually be conducted in public but considered that the exemptions within Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the private life of individuals, reflected within the Rules, should be applied to information about the health of the Registrant.

Background

5. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic employed by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”).

6. On 17 October 2022, the Registrant commenced an Offshore Medic training course (“the Course”) with MediPro Limited, an independent training organisation (“the Course Provider”). The cost of the Course was in the region of £2000 and it consisted of two weeks of classroom-based learning and 60 hours of practical placement. The practical placement could be arranged by the Course Provider for an additional fee of around £1000 if the participants could not arrange their own practical placement with a mentor who was an appropriately qualified and registered professional approved by the Course Provider. However, the Registrant chose to arrange his own placement with an appropriately qualified and registered mentor, Person B, who was approved by the Course Provider.

7. On 18 January 2023, the Course Provider contacted the Registrant via email to check how he was getting on with his placement and remind him that the placement needed to be completed by 17 April 2023.

8. The Course Provider again emailed the Registrant for a progress update in respect of the completion of the practice placement on 15 May 2023. The Registrant stated in his reply to the email that he was in Romania and suggested that he may have written the wrong address on the paperwork when moving house. He indicated that he would check with his old address and send the paperwork to the Course Provider when he returned to the country.

9. Between 15 May 2023 and 23 May 2023, the Course Provider received a completed Learner Placement Book from the Registrant. The identified mentor was Person B, a registered Paramedic. The Course Provider attempted to contact Person B via email on 26 May 2023 to verify that she had supervised the Registrant’s placement and signed off his competencies.

10. On 6 June 2023, the Registrant contacted the Course Provider via email to ask when his certificates would be issued. The Course Provider responded via email on the same date that they awaited Person B’s confirmation of the placement details prior to issuing the certificates.

11. The Registrant again contacted the Course Provider on 13 June 2023, indicating that he did not think that Person B would respond as he had only done one day with her. He informed the Course Provider that he did not intend to pursue the offshore certification and asked that he be issued certificates to evidence Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”). The Registrant followed this up with a telephone call in which he admitted that he had completed the Learner Placement Book in its entirety.

12. Person B contacted the Course Provider on 22 June 2023 and confirmed that she had arranged a placement for the Registrant but he had not attended and she had not seen the practice assessment document or signed it.

13. The Course Provider reported its concerns about the Registrant’s conduct to the HCPC on 11 July 2023.

14. On 5 February 2024, an Investigating Committee Panel determined that there was a case for the Registrant to answer.

Decision on Facts

Submissions

15. The Presenting Officer did not call any witnesses to give evidence for the HCPC, following the admission by the Registrant to all of the particulars of the Allegation. She confirmed that the Panel could accept the early and consistent admissions of the Registrant in respect of the factual particulars, which he had maintained throughout the regulatory process, and find the facts proved on the balance of probability by admission.

16. In respect of the issue of dishonesty, the Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the test identified in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and invited it to determine the Registrant’s subjective state of knowledge of the facts before applying the objective standard of ordinary decent people to those facts to determine the issue of dishonesty. She reminded the Panel that it could find the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest even if it considered that it was not his intention to be dishonest.

17. The Registrant admitted all of the particulars to the Panel and stated that he understood why he had been reported to, and needed to answer to, his Regulator. He spoke of his regret for his actions and explained the impact that this had on him personally and professionally, stating that he always thought that he was “a solution not a problem” and that he realised he had been a burden to his employer. He told the Panel that he holds himself to a “higher standard” of conduct than the behaviour he had displayed here and he would not try to justify or excuse his actions, but wanted to put some context as to why he “made such a bad decision in the first place”.

Admissions

18. Having regard to the above submissions, the Panel considered the particulars, taking account of the documentary and oral evidence, the submissions made to it, and the legal advice provided by the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied. It also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes available to assist it, particularly those entitled “Unrepresented Registrants” and “Admissions”. It was conscious that it was obliged to approach the consideration of the particulars sequentially, deciding firstly whether the facts set out in the particulars were proved and, if so, to then move on to determine whether they amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct. Only if facts were found to be proved and amount to a statutory ground of misconduct would the Panel proceed to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

19. The Panel noted that the Registrant first accepted that he had made up the content of the Learner Placement Book in June 2023, before the matter was referred to the HCPC. He consistently maintained this position during the regulatory investigation and before the Investigating Committee Panel, as well as at this hearing. He told the Panel that he made his employer aware of what he had done and co-operated with their investigation, which resulted in no action against him.

20. The Panel provided an opportunity for the Legal Assessor, along with the Presenting Officer, to fully explain the legal test for dishonesty to the Registrant. Furthermore, the Panel assured itself in discussion with the Registrant during the hearing that he fully comprehended that test.

21. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the admissions made by the Registrant in respect of the particulars were unequivocal and that he was fully informed of the serious nature of the alleged misconduct. This included the allegation of dishonesty and the potential consequences for him. He had been referred to the various HCPTS Practice Notes, as well as the HCPC Sanction Policy, and maintained his admissions.

Decision

Particular 1(a) – Proved

1) Between around 15 May 2023 and 26 May 2023, you submitted a learner placement book that was inaccurate, in that you:

a. Recorded that you had undertaken placements at Surgery A on the dates set out at Schedule 1;

22. The Panel was content to accept the Registrant’s admission that, over a period of a few hours, he completed the Learner Placement Book to evidence that he had attended placements with his mentor on six occasions between 10 November 2022 and 10 February 2023 when this was not the case. This particular was proved on the balance of probability by the admission of the Registrant.

Particular 1(b) – Proved

1) Between around 15 May 2023 and 26 May 2023, you submitted a learner placement book that was inaccurate, in that you:

b. Inputted the signature of Person B in relation to one or more of the placement dates set out at Schedule 1, without Person B’s consent;

23. The Panel had regard to the witness statement of Person B dated 1 May 2024, which confirmed that she had not seen the completed Learner Placement Book, made any of the notes, or signed any of the signatures before it was submitted by the Registrant to the Course Provider. It also had regard to the records of communication between the Course Provider and the Registrant on 13 June 2023 and the admission of the Registrant that he created the notes and signatures for each of the placement dates. The Panel was satisfied that this Particular was proved on the balance of probability by evidence provided to it and by the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 1(c) – Proved

1) Between around 15 May 2023 and 26 May 2023, you submitted a learner placement book that was inaccurate, in that you:

c. Inputted the signature of Person B in relation to declaration of placement hours undertaken, without Person B’s consent;

24. The Panel considered the content of the Learner Placement Book submitted by the Registrant to the Course Provider and his admission that he had not attended the surgery or completed the hours stated with Person B or anyone else. It was satisfied that by accepting that he completed the book in its entirety, the Registrant acknowledged that Person B had no knowledge of what had been submitted in her name. The Panel also identified no evidence that Person B had consented to the submission of the booklet in her name. Accordingly, it found this particular proved on the balance of probability as a result of the evidence provided and by the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 1(d) – Proved

1) Between around 15 May 2023 and 26 May 2023, you submitted a learner placement book that was inaccurate, in that you:

d. Inputted the signature of Person B in relation to one or more of the training objectives and/or competency achievements set out at Schedule 2, without Person B’s consent.

25. The Registrant accepted that he completed the Learner Placement Booklet and inputted Person B’s name in respect of the training objectives and competencies listed at Schedule 2. The Registrant explained that the course curriculum was “ambulance bread and butter” but he had learnt about extrications and catheterisation.

26. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s assertion that the competencies and objectives listed at Schedule 2 were standard matters encountered by Paramedics. Rather, the Panel was of the view that some of the competencies would be likely to be met only by advanced Paramedic practitioners, which the Registrant was not. Therefore, not only did the Registrant submit the booklet to assert that a fellow professional had witnessed his competence with these tasks and sign her name to that effect, but if the certificate was issued he would have been able to place this qualification on his CV and thereby give the appearance of being qualified in those competencies when he was not. Further, achieving those competencies would enable the Registrant to potentially access higher paid roles in which he was not qualified to perform.

27. This Particular was proved on the balance of probability by the evidence before the Panel and by the Registrant’s own admission.

Particular 2 – Proved

2) Your conduct at particular 1a above was dishonest in that you sought to represent that you had undertaken one or more of the placements when you knew that you had not.

28. The Registrant accepted throughout that he had not undertaken the placements set out at Schedule 1 on those dates or at all, and that he made them up and submitted them to the Course Provider because he thought that the Course Provider would not check the accuracy of them. The Registrant also accepted that his actions were dishonest from an early point and had not changed his view when made aware of the serious nature of the consequences he now faced.

29. The Panel had regard in particular to the fact that the first lie was told to the Course Provider on 18 January 2023 when the Registrant said he had only managed to complete one shift, knowing he had completed no shifts, some four months before the falsified workbook was submitted. Further:

a. The Registrant told Person B via WhatsApp message on 7 November 2022 that “I’m doing the other half of the certification next week in Newcastle” when this was not the case;

b. The Registrant expressed to Person B via WhatsApp message on 8 November 2022 that he was required to have 60 hours of placement but that “2 – 3 shifts would do”, displaying an apparently cavalier approach to the course requirements from the outset;

c. On 15 May 2023, outside of the six-month period allowed for the Registrant to complete his placement, when asked where his booklet was, the Registrant, knowing he had neither completed the placement nor the booklet, told the Course Provider that “Since I have sent the workbook I have moved house” and “I may have written the wrong address on the envelope”;

d. The Registrant recalled that it took him “a few hours” to complete the booklet using his knowledge of patients he had treated;

e. An attempt was made by the Registrant to disguise his handwriting as Person B’s when completing the Learner Placement Book, assigning the mentor comments to Person B using her registration number and creating her signature to confirm completion of the Learner Placement Book;

f. The Registrant used different dates for different training objectives and to indicate when competencies were met;

g. The booklet was submitted to the Course Provider for the purpose of securing the award of the Offshore Medic certification when the Registrant knew he had not completed any of the required 60 hours of clinical placement.

30. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had expended some effort to falsify the Learner Placement Book. Given his persistence in seeking some benefit from his attendance at the course in the form of CPD, rather than the Offshore Medic certification when he realised that this was no longer an option, the Panel was entirely satisfied that ordinary decent people would consider the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest. This particular was therefore proved on the balance of probability due to the evidence available to the Panel and by the Registrant’s own admission.

Particular 3 – Proved

3) Your conduct at any or all of particulars 1b to 1d above was dishonest in that you:

a. Knew that you did not have consent to input Person B’s signature; and / or,

b. Intended to create a false impression that Person B had inputted their signature.

31. In respect of Particular 3(a), both Person B (via her statement) and the Registrant confirmed that the Registrant did not have consent to affix her signature to the Learner Placement Book to confirm the placement dates, hours, or achievement of training objectives. Further, none of this information was true.

32. In respect of Particular 3(b), the Registrant admitted that he completed the Learner Placement Booklet for submission to the Course Provider initially to secure the Offshore Medic certification which, if awarded, could open further lucrative work opportunities to him. The Registrant confirmed that:

a. On 5 November 2022, in a WhatsApp message to Person B, he said that “The course people will need to contact them to make sure I haven’t made them up”;

b. On 7 November 2022, via WhatsApp, he commented on the mentor requirements confirmed by the Course Provider that “I think they’ll think it’s a fix otherwise”;

c. He discussed with a colleague what the likelihood was of the Course Provider checking the contents of the booklet and the colleague agreed it was unlikely;

d. He asked Person B via a WhatsApp message on 6 June 2023, “If medipro ask just tell em I’ve been a good boy! They messaged me while I was home in Romania saying the [sic] can’t find my work book, could I please resend it! So I made a bunch of stuff up in what clearly is my handwriting with a slight variation and sent it! Is very obvious, but I doubt they care”;

e. On 13 June 2023, via WhatsApp message, he told Person B “…I completely broke your trust. 100% my fault alone. You passed me the details in good faith and I stupidly misused it. I’m very sorry [Person B]…” in the hope that the Course Provider would not verify the contents to secure the Offshore Medic certification.

33. The Panel was uncertain whether the signature affixed was Person B’s actual signature, inappropriately applied without her knowledge or consent, or a signature created by the Registrant. The Registrant had expressed regret at misusing the information provided by Person B to suggest that the signature that was affixed was in fact Person B’s signature. Regardless, the Panel was satisfied that the sole purpose and benefit of this act was to convince the Course Provider that he had complied with their course requirements for his own benefit. It had no hesitation in concluding that ordinary decent people would consider the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest. This Particular was therefore proved on the balance of probability due to the evidence available to the Panel and by the Registrant’s own admission.

Decision on Grounds

Submissions

34. The Presenting Officer submitted that whether the proved allegations amounted to a statutory ground was a matter for the Panel. She reminded the Panel of the guidance in the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2001] 1 AC 311 and emphasised that misconduct involves an act or omission falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances, having regard to the standards of propriety for the practitioner. The conduct must be professional and serious to amount to the statutory ground of misconduct.

35. It was the HCPC’s position that the Registrant had, by the facts found proved, breached Standards 3.4, 9.1, and 9.2 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (January 2016) and Standards 2.2, 3.1, 9.2, 10.1, and 11.1 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (September 2014), which were relevant at the time of the Allegation. She submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in respect of the facts found proved established that he acted in a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of a HCPC-registered Paramedic.

36. The Registrant told the Panel under Affirmation that at the relevant time, he was under a lot of pressure as a result of:

a. The impact of the Covid 19 pandemic;

b. Crossing the picket lines of striking Paramedics as he could not afford to be on strike, which caused tension with his colleagues;

c. Family assistance to help him afford to move house;

d. Having used part of the money for the deposit for the house to pay for the Offshore Medic certification;

e. Him being required to engage in proceedings in the Coroners’ Court in relation to the deaths of three patients.

37. The Registrant asserted that he did not seek to excuse what he did and explained that he “went home [to Romania] in January / February 2023 to clear my head and be away for a while”, but that he could not tell his mother about the Coroners’ Court case or that he had not secured his placement hours. The Registrant said that he had “every intention to go and complete the work and the practice book” but then withdrew from the practical exercise involving helicopter rescue, which had cost a further £900. He informed the Panel that the practical test required him to do training and water activities, which he did not enjoy as he cannot swim. He was concerned at the amount of money that had been invested in his training when it was not going to work out for him and was a “dead end”. The Registrant recognised that “It was a few months of lying to myself and digging in deeper in the excuses … If you do a stupid thing, bad things happen to you”. He explained that he’d always prided himself on being able to call himself honest, but could no longer do that. He told the Panel that if his parents had known about it “they’d be deeply ashamed of me” and that this was the worst thing he had done in his life and it had cost him a lot in terms of his self-esteem and the respect of his colleagues. He did, however, reject the suggestion that his conduct was financially motivated.

38. The Panel took into account the oral submissions, accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor, and had regard to the guidance issued by the HCPC. It noted that the statutory ground advanced by the HCPC in this matter was misconduct; none of the other statutory grounds set out within the Health Professions Order 2001 at Article 22(1) had been alleged by the HCPC and they were not therefore considered by the Panel.

39. 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:

HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):

9. Be honest and trustworthy

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

HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014):

3. Be able to maintain fitness to practise

3.1 Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

10. Be able to maintain records appropriately

10.1 Be able to keep accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible records in accordance with applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines

40. The Panel was aware that determining the issue of misconduct was a matter for its own judgement. In considering the grounds, the Panel took into account the submissions by the parties, in addition to the evidence received within the hearing.

41. 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.

42. Given the admissions of the Registrant and the findings of the Panel in respect of each Particular, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct did amount to the statutory ground of misconduct. It considered it to be a basic tenet of the profession that regulated professionals are honest but found that, in this case, the Registrant’s dishonest conduct fell short of that expected standard on a number of occasions over a period of months. The Registrant could, at a number of points between November 2022 and June 2023, have withdrawn from the Offshore Medic certification or written up his classroom learning for his CPD but he chose not to do so. He then compounded his conduct by using the registration and professional details of a colleague, given in good faith to assist him, for his own benefit and purposes.

43. The Panel recognised that the Registrant’s conduct occurred in his private pursuit of a qualification which could give him additional lucrative future career opportunities, but determined that it was intrinsically linked to his profession and therefore amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and collectively.

Decision on Impairment

44. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant is impaired by reason of misconduct on both the public and private components. She invited the Panel to have regard to the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWCH 581 (Admin), which identified that panels should consider whether the conduct which is the subject of an allegation is remediable, has been remedied, and whether it is likely to be repeated. It was the HCPC’s position that dishonesty, especially for financial gain, is hard to remediate.

45. The Presenting Officer acknowledged some level of insight on the part of the Registrant, but indicated that this appeared to be in the early stage of development and had some way to go until full insight was achieved. The Registrant did not appear to realise the seriousness of his conduct or recognise the potential financial benefit that could have arisen from his dishonesty. She noted that although the Registrant expressed an intention to undertake a relevant training course on integrity in 2023, he still had not done so. His account of his conduct appeared to be that it was a moment of madness and this did not reflect the seriousness of his actions. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Registrant did not initially inform his employer about the regulatory investigation which was commenced by the HCPC, nor did he self-report to the HCPC when the Course Provider raised concerns about his conduct.

46. The Presenting Officer accepted that the Registrant had addressed some of the issues of concern during this hearing, but that his focus had very much been on himself and the circumstances for him, rather than for the profession. For example, in response to questions about whether he would repeat the conduct, he stated that he would not because of the impact on him. He did not reference any strategies that he would adopt to ensure it did not happen again. The Presenting Officer submitted that the misconduct was not remediated and that there remained a risk that it would be repeated; therefore, the Registrant was impaired on the personal component of impairment.

47. In respect of the public aspect of impairment, the Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on impairment and in particular the findings in relation to the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). She submitted that a finding of impairment was required in this matter to uphold professional standards. Whilst service users had not been put directly at risk of harm in this matter, the nature of the dishonesty over the Registrant’s training meant that there was a particular need for a finding of impairment to maintain professional standards and confidence in the profession given the risk of future repetition of the conduct, which could bring the profession into disrepute.

48. The Registrant invited his current manager at the Trust (SH) to the hearing for the purpose of elaborating upon the character reference that she had provided dated 6 March 2025. SH confirmed under Affirmation that she knew the Registrant well as she was his Clinical Team Leader. She found the Registrant to be honest, compassionate, and caring and was shocked when she heard about the Allegation. She told the Panel that the Registrant was well liked on the ambulance station and that he expressed remorse for his actions. He was supportive of colleagues and open during supervision sessions with her. He had introduced her to new methods of undertaking CPD, such as podcasts and webinars. SH assured the Panel that she had no concerns about the Registrant, either personally or professionally, and she had not needed to encourage him to undertake CPD; indeed, she told the Panel that the Registrant accessed a wide range of CPD opportunities, mainly relating to clinical topics. She was aware of the toll that this matter had taken on the Registrant and was pleased to see how happy he was upon his return to normal duties following the Trust’s disciplinary process.

49. In response to questions from the Panel, SH confirmed that she was aware of the nature of the Allegation and that it referred to dishonesty by the falsification of signatures. She had no more information than that as she was tasked with supporting the Registrant during the Trust’s internal investigation and was therefore kept deliberately at arm’s length from the disciplinary investigation. SH described her formal supervision arrangements with the Registrant, whereby she spent two full days a year with him as his clinical lead, as well as coming into contact with him at the ambulance station and at hospital. She was clear that the Registrant was upset about colleagues finding out what he had done and had told her he felt he had let everyone down by his mistake. SH confirmed that, as a registered Paramedic, she would be shocked at having to work with a dishonest colleague but that she had never had any issues with the Registrant and that anyone can make a mistake. SH told the Panel that finding out about the Allegation had been such a shock to her that she had to clarify with the HCPC that it was in relation to the Registrant.

50. The Registrant provided further evidence to the Panel under Affirmation in respect of his current practice. He acknowledged that he “had been bad” at providing the Panel with evidence of what he had done over the last couple of years (to remediate his conduct) but assured the Panel that he tried to keep abreast of CPD and routinely revised his knowledge. He explained that he worked with student Paramedics, going through things with them and setting them homework to replicate the good mentor he had as a student. The Registrant told the Panel that he had forgotten that he was off the road for a period while the Trust investigated the concerns raised with the HCPC. He said that he thought the profession had changed and become more challenging in recent years but he tried to maintain a positive outlook and encouraged others to work hard. He reflected that he had become more cautious as a Paramedic following the cases referred to the Coroner’s Court and that he regretted not providing the Panel with written reflections.

51. Being allowed by the Trust to return to work had been a “massive boost” to the Registrant’s confidence and he explained that the approach of the Trust and his colleagues had helped him a lot; they had been very supportive of him. He said he had attempted to contact Person B to express his remorse to her directly but she would not respond to him; he was uncertain whether she was prevented from doing so given the regulatory proceedings. However, he indicated that he would try again to reach out to her to express his remorse and assure her that he had not intended to cause her any difficulty by his actions. The Registrant also suggested that he could use his experience of the regulatory proceedings to support other colleagues and be an example for colleagues and managers going forward.

52. The Registrant responded to questions, explaining that he thought the HCPC would contact the Trust about the concern raised against him, which was why he did not tell his employer about them but lived in dread of being contacted by Trust management. He also did not think to report anything to his employer or the HCPC when the Course Provider identified what had happened; he could not answer clearly whether he would have reported what he had done if the Course Provider had not reported him to the HCPC. However, he told the Panel that he thought he would have mentioned it to SH at some point given the extent to which it was on his mind, particularly given the good support she offered him, which enabled him to raise any issues with her. The Registrant said the concerns would never be repeated because of how traumatic and horrible the regulatory process had been for him. However, if he ever did anything wrong again, he said he would report it and he explained that there were processes at work for reporting things that went wrong, such as with medications, etc. He told the Panel he could not go through this again and that it had been the worst period of his life so far. He was prepared to do courses to evidence his commitment to the profession but did not think he needed to attend a course to tell him how badly he had messed up.

53. When asked about the impact of his actions upon the profession and the public, the Registrant told the Panel that Paramedics are in a privileged position given the trust that people have in them, allowing them to walk into someone’s home. He told the Panel that he was proud that people would let him through and smile at him when he wore his uniform. He recognised that patients are vulnerable and may be concerned to hear a Paramedic had acted as he had, saying he had a lot of making up to do to show that he was a trustworthy person.

54. The Registrant concluded his submissions by stating that it was very hard to defend his actions but he was aware of the distress and upset caused to Person B and this had not been his intention. He wanted to keep working as a Paramedic and was aware of the impact this conduct could have upon his colleagues and the wider profession.

55. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor in relation to the issue of impairment, which it accepted and applied. It had regard to the Practice Notes to which it had been referred, particularly that entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment”, the submissions it received in respect of impairment, and the evidence available to it. It was conscious 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 but to protect the public.

56. The Panel was mindful that a finding of impairment does not automatically follow a finding that a particular has been found proved and amounts to the statutory ground of misconduct. It could properly conclude the misconduct was an isolated incident and that the chance of repetition in the future was remote. The Panel 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 remediable, has been remedied, and is highly unlikely to be repeated, as well as the “critically important public policy issues” identified in that case.

57. Attitudinal matters such as dishonesty are very difficult to remediate, but the Panel considered that they can be remediated in some circumstances. It noted that there was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Registrant enrolled on the Offshore Medic course with dishonest intent from the outset, intending to falsify the placement records. Rather, he did attempt to arrange his own placement through Person B to avoid having to pay additional fees to the Course Provider, albeit not for the required placement hours. He also attended the classroom-based learning for the course. His first dishonest act occurred when he told the Course Provider in January 2023 that he had completed one placement shift with a mentor when he had not, in response to the Course Provider checking up on his progress with completion of the placement hours. At that point, the Registrant could still have organised the required placement hours to enable him to achieve the certification, but he did not.

58. The first lie was then compounded (when the Registrant responded to the next contact from the Course Provider in May 2023 asking where his Learner Placement Book was) by him untruthfully telling them that he may have put the wrong address on it due to moving house. It appears that this was the point at which the Registrant decided to complete and submit a wholly fabricated Learner Placement Book rather than arrange the required placement or withdraw from the course. He completed the book over a period of several hours with detailed fictitious observations attributed to various dates, designed to evidence some of the learning objectives required for the course. He also completed the sections required to be completed by the mentor, inserting Person B’s name, signature, designation, and professional registration number on each entry. He then sent this fabricated document to the Course Provider, apparently not expecting it to verify the contents before issuing him with the Offshore Medic certification.

59. Having submitted the book, the Registrant then contacted Person B and admitted that he had made up what he submitted but that she could simply tell the Course Provider he had been a “good boy”. He then asked her what sort of a gift voucher she would like.

60. When the Course Provider told the Registrant it had been unable to verify the contents of the book with Person B, he could still at that point have withdrawn from the certification process. Instead, he indicated that he would be prepared to accept certificates of CPD reflecting the classroom learning he had undertaken as he did not now intend to work offshore. His explanation for this to the Panel was that he was embarrassed at having not completed the course and the expense that he had incurred. He thought that he would at least have something to show for his investment if he received certificates of completion of the classroom-based learning, which he could provide as evidence of completed CPD. It was only when Person B contacted the Registrant and told him “you’ve put me in a really awkward and shit situation. You’ve forged all the signators [sic] and competencies against my name putting my registration and name on the line” that the Registrant appeared to realise the severity of what he had done.

61. The Panel noted the Presenting Officer’s suggestion that the Registrant should have informed the employer and his regulator of the concerns raised by the Course Provider. However, it considered that he was not required by the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics applicable at the time to make such a report at that stage, given that no formal finding had been made against him. The Trust was made aware of the concerns about him by the HCPC and did undertake its own disciplinary investigation, during which time the Registrant was placed on modified duties. The Panel was surprised to note that it had not been provided with any of the information in relation to that process, or indeed the outcome of it. It was particularly surprised that, by the Registrant’s account, there was a disciplinary hearing before a disciplinary panel with no apparent adverse finding against the Registrant. Further, when the Registrant asked why the Trust were being so supportive of him, the Chair of that panel told him words to the effect that she had spoken to everyone she could find about him and not heard a bad word about him. This approach by the Trust could have led the Registrant to view his conduct as not relevant to his employment, which could not be further from the truth in the Panel’s view.

62. However, notwithstanding the concerns about the Trust’s apparently cavalier approach to a fundamental tenet of the profession (honesty and integrity), the Panel was mindful that the Trust appeared to value the Registrant as an employee and did not appear to have restricted his practice as a result of this matter. In fact, the Registrant told the Panel that the Trust allowed students to accompany him during shifts, according him additional responsibility for shaping future professionals despite knowing that he was being investigated by his Regulator for matters of dishonesty.

63. The Panel was also mindful that the Registrant provided a written testimonial from a colleague and that SH also wrote a testimonial for him and attended the hearing to answer questions about the Registrant. Whilst this information was reassuring to the Panel as to the Registrant’s clinical performance, it was of limited assistance to the Panel’s consideration of the Registrant’s honesty and integrity, or the remediation of the dishonest conduct.

64. The Panel also carefully considered the oral evidence provided to it by the Registrant, as well as the more contemporaneous undated statement in the bundle of documents, which the Registrant said was provided to the HCPC in 2023. Both the statement and the oral evidence hinted that the Registrant may have been struggling with his health at the material time and thereafter; however, the Panel had not been provided with any detail in that regard by the Registrant or any medical professional providing support to him. The Panel noted that, at the outset of the hearing, the Registrant said that his situation was self-inflicted and “no-one put a gun to my head on it. That’s why I don’t have legal or union support, I should go through it on my own”. He also told the Panel that he had been unable to prepare for the hearing or even read the detail in the bundle as the contents of it made him feel sick.

65. If the Registrant had sought professional advice in relation to the regulatory proceedings, the Panel thought it likely that he would have been encouraged to:

a. better understand the nuances and expectations in respect of regulatory proceedings, such as the difference that dishonesty for financial gain can make to the seriousness of an allegation;

b. document his reflections on the concerns over time;

c. provide details of relevant CPD that he had undertaken;

d. ensure that any learning from his reflection and CPD was applied to his practice and that he could demonstrate changes through his practice;

e. provide copies of his supervisions and appraisals to evidence the Trust’s satisfaction with his competence and conduct; and

f. [redacted];

all of which would have been of assistance to the Panel in exploring the extent of his insight and remediation. The Panel acknowledged that the lack of representation was not an excuse for the shortfalls in reflection and remediation, but it was mindful of its duty to ensure that the lack of representation should not unfairly prejudice the Registrant’s case.

66. Given the above, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s misconduct was potentially remediable but had not as yet been remediated. It considered that the Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below the standard expected of a registered professional but that he did demonstrate some developing insight into the conduct and its potential impact on his colleagues and the profession, as well as the public. However, it considered that the Registrant should give careful consideration to, and evidence, how he can manage his response to stressful situations or mistakes which result in adverse outcomes and are potentially investigated by the Coroner; it noted his assertion that after the first Coroner case he conveyed “even scratches and bruises” to hospital for months and that he was meticulous in checking the accuracy of dates and hours recorded in learning records.

67. The Panel considered it a fundamental tenet of the Paramedic profession that a registrant is honest, trustworthy, and has integrity, and was concerned that the Registrant’s conduct in 2023 fell short of these expectations. However, it recognised that the Registrant appeared to have been working without issue in the two years since the conduct occurred. It considered that the likelihood of dishonest conduct being repeated was low given the Registrant’s evidence regarding the significant adverse impact that he had experienced. Furthermore, the Panel took into consideration his developing insight, his attendance at the hearing, and the support offered to him by the Trust, particularly SH. The Panel’s assessment of the likelihood of the misconduct being repeated did not, however, mitigate its concerns over the extent of his remediation and insight. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant to be impaired on the private component of impairment.

68. 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. It was mindful that the concerns arose from the Registrant’s conduct away from his employment but were clearly connected to his profession. It concluded that the public interest was engaged; registered professionals are obliged to abide by professional standards outside of their employment, as required by Standard 9 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics and Standard 3 of the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics.

69. The Panel was satisfied that members of the public and members of the profession would be concerned to learn that a registered professional dishonestly:

a. fabricated a Learner Placement Book in respect of placements which did not take place;

b. took advantage of a colleague who had tried to help him by facilitating work placements, in that he used her name, designation, and professional registration number and falsified her signature on that fabricated document; and

c. sought to secure the award of the Offshore Medic certification when he was not qualified to do so.

70. The Panel considered that public and professional trust and confidence in the profession, professional standards, and the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment in respect of the public component of impairment was not made in the circumstances, particularly given its finding that the Registrant was also impaired on the private component of impairment.

No information currently available

The hearing of this case concluded on 26 June 2025.  The Professional Standards Autority appealed teh decision made by the panel.

In March 2026 teh High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the sanction.

This matter will be remitted to a freshly constituted Conduct and Competence Committee for re-determination of the sanction.

History of Hearings for Bogdan Volindan