Grzegorz P Skierka

Preliminary Matters
Service

1. The Panel had information before it that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by email on 8 May 2025 to the Registrant’s email address on the HCPC Register.

2. The Panel had in mind the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that there had been good service in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in Absence

3. Ms Mertens, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to take place in the absence of the Registrant. Ms Mertens confirmed that following a check having been made, there had been no contact or communication from the Registrant with regard to today’s hearing. Ms Mertens referred to the Registrant’s health condition which may be a cause of the lack of engagement, however, the HCPC had reached out to him in the past. Ms Mertens also reminded the Panel that the substantive order, which is the subject of today’s review, is due to expire on 20 June 2025, and that it would be difficult to convene another hearing before that date. Ms Mertens submitted that given the passage of time, on the face of it, the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from today’s hearing.

4. The Panel considered whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and was aware that the discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
The Panel took into account that the date of expiry of the current order is 20 June 2025 and that this is a mandatory review which is required to take place prior to that date. The Registrant was served with the Notice of the hearing on 8 May 2025 and has had time to prepare. The Panel took into account that there has been no indication of any engagement from the Registrant with regard to this hearing, and given the passage of time, it can reasonably be inferred that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend.

5. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed, taking into account the Registrant’s lack of engagement, as well as the public interest in the expeditious disposal of this mandatory review.

Partly Private Hearing

6. At the start of the hearing, Ms Mertens applied for any parts of the hearing in which the health of the Registrant was mentioned, to be heard in private in order to protect his private life.

7. The panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

8. The panel bore in mind the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003.

9. The panel decided that any reference to the Registrant’s health should be in private in order to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life.

Background

10. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic who at the time of the misconduct was employed by CRG Medical Services (‘CRG’) since April 2018. CRG were contracted to provide medical cover to police custody suites.

11. On 26 July 2021, WB, CRG's Head of Clinical Operations for the
relevant area, was informed that the Registrant had not attended his
shift at the Basildon Custody Suite that day and that there had been
some police involvement. WB attended the Registrant’s home
address to understand more about the situation. The Registrant
advised her that he had been arrested following an attempt to buy
‘magic mushrooms’(psilocin).

12. CRG began a disciplinary investigation, including conducting an
interview with Registrant. During this interview, he discussed his
reasons for attempting to buy the ‘magic mushrooms’, which included
assisting with the health of himself and his partner.

13. A disciplinary hearing was held by CRG on 10 August 2021, following
which CRG wrote to the Registrant on 12 August 2021 with its decision
to terminate the Registrant’s employment with immediate effect.
32. Following the disciplinary process, CRG made a fitness to practise
referral to the HCPC on 20 August 2021.

14. On 14 January 2022, the police confirmed to the HCPC that they did
not take any action against the Registrant.

Submissions

15. Ms Mertens submitted that there was an absence of any evidence from the Registrant to demonstrate, for example, how he had addressed his health issues, and to show that he had addressed the previous panel’s concerns about his insufficient insight into the misconduct.

16. Ms Mertens informed the Panel that her instructions were to seek a Striking Off Order and referred to the Sanctions Policy governing Striking Off Orders. Ms Mertens stated that however, the Panel may consider that a further short period of Suspension was appropriate.

Decision on Impairment

17. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the HCPC bundle and the submissions of Ms Mertens.

18. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel must exercise its own independent judgement with regard to impairment, bearing in mind that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to show that he has addressed his impairment. Only if impairment remained, would the panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any to impose.

19. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The Panel took into account all of the material before it. There has been no information submitted by the Registrant. The Panel noted that he did not attend the last hearing, and while the original substantive hearing panel had suggested that a future reviewing panel would be assisted by various items of evidence to be submitted by the Registrant, the Registrant had not submitted any information on his behalf, whether at the previous review hearing or for the purpose of this hearing. As such, the Panel took the view that there had been no material change since the last hearing.

20. There is no information to suggest what the Registrant’s level of insight is, any evidence of steps he has taken to address his health issues, any written reflection, or steps he had taken to keep his knowledge and skills up to date, during the Suspension Order. The misconduct was a serious breach of standards and undermined confidence in him and the profession, and he has not demonstrated that he has addressed this breach of standards in anyway.

21. In the circumstances, in the absence of any evidence from the Registrant, there remained a real risk of repetition of the misconduct. As such, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the personal component.

22. Due to the lack of engagement by the Registrant, the breach of standards and the ongoing risk of repetition, the Panel found that the need to uphold standards and confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

23. The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction in this case us to uphold the public interest, and not to punish. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the Sanctions Policy.

24. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would not be sufficient to address the wider public interest., bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition. As such, it would not be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons,

25. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. However, it had no indication that the Registrant would be willing to comply with conditions. In addition, this was not a case where the misconduct related to clinical concerns, which may be addressed by verifiable conditions targeting deficits in professional performance. Rather, this case involved attempting to purchase Class A drugs. The Panel therefore did not consider that it could formulate workable conditions to safeguard against the risk which it has identified of the Registrant repeating his misconduct, and thereby undermining public confidence. As such no conditions could be sufficient to uphold the public interest.

26. The Panel next considered Suspension and decided that in light of the limited insight shown thus far and the real risk of repetition, and as well as the seriousness of the misconduct, a period of Suspension would be appropriate. The Panel was satisfied that no lesser sanction than Suspension would be necessary and proportionate to safeguard against the risk to public confidence in this case. It would mark the seriousness of the public interest. In addition, a period of Suspension would allow the Registrant the opportunity to engage with the regulatory process, if he so wishes, and demonstrate his insight into, and remediation of, the misconduct found proved.

27. The Panel determined that a period of six months was proportionate and necessary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and mark it for the purposes of addressing the public interest in this case. It would also allow the Registrant sufficient time to engage with the process and prepare any evidence upon which he seeks to rely.

28. The Panel did consider a Striking Off order, taking into account the Registrant’s lack of engagement during the last review hearing and today’s hearing, and the unresolved issues and risk that remain. The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant has not engaged with the regulatory process since the brief email submitted to the previous reviewing panel. As such, and taking into account the lapse of time, the Panel took the view that a Striking Off Order may well be an order that a future panel may make if the Registrant continued not to engage, and therefore fails to show that these serious breaches of professional standards and the wider public interest concerns have been addressed. However, this panel today considered that such an outcome would at this point in time be disproportionate given that the Registrant has engaged in the past, and has a documented health condition which may be contributing to his lack of engagement.

29. In coming to its decision the Panel took into account the impact a Suspension Order decision will have on the Registrant’s right to practise as well as the potential financial and reputational impact, but decided that the need to uphold the public interest outweighed his interests in this respect.

30. The Panel therefore decided to impose a six month period of Suspension which will take effect on the expiry of the current order, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

31. The Panel also decided that a future reviewing panel may be greatly assisted by the following:

i. attendance at the hearing via Teams link;

ii. updated medical evidence as to his health;

iii. A reflective statement focusing on:

a. what caused him to commit his misconduct;
b. the measures he has have taken to prevent recurrence;
c. the impact of his misconduct on colleagues and wider public confidence in the profession.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Grzegorz P Skierka for a period of 6 months from the date of expiry of the current order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 20 June 2025
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 20 December 2025

History of Hearings for Grzegorz P Skierka