​​Keith S Cameron​

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied on the papers that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing by email dated 9 May 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended.

Proceeding in absence

2. Mr Maughan made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was informed that the Registrant had not engaged at any stage with the HCPC proceedings. He had not applied for an adjournment of this hearing. The Panel inferred that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend. The Panel considered that the Registrant would be unlikely to attend if the hearing were to be adjourned to another date and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. The Panel decided that the public interest in the determination of these proceedings outweighed any potential unfairness to the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic. He was employed as a Lecturer in Paramedic Science at Glasgow Caledonian University between 13 August 2018 and 2 August 2023.

5. On 10 August 2023 the Registrant was referred to the HCPC following his arrest by Police Scotland on 30 June 2023 for sexual offences, including possession of indecent images, namely category C images of females aged 12 years, on his mobile phone.

6. On 6 August 2024, at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, the Registrant was convicted on his own Guilty pleas of the following offences:

• Charge 1: Possession of indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children
• Charge 3: Distribution of an intimate photograph online
7. On 10 September 2024, the Registrant was sentenced to the following:
• Charge 1: Community payback order with supervision requirement for a period of 3 years, together with unpaid work/activities requirement for a period of 225 hours to be completed within 12 months. A certificate in terms of Sexual Offences Act 2003 was applied for a period of 3 years
• Charge 3: Community payback order with supervision requirement for a period of 3 years, together with unpaid work/activities requirement for a period of 225 hours to be completed within 12 months. A certificate in terms of Sexual Offences Act 2003 was applied for a period of 3 years

8. On 13 November 2024, the Registrant was listed in the Children’s and Adults’ List as being unsuitable to work with children and adults under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. That means that the Registrant is barred from regulated work with children and adults, as defined in Schedules 2 and 3 of that Act.

The Panel’s findings of fact

9. The Panel was provided with a copy of the Full Extract Conviction Report, which corresponded with particulars 1(a) and 1(b). On the basis of the Extract Conviction Report, the Panel found particulars 1(a) and 1(b) proved.

Submissions on Impairment

10. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his convictions in respect of both the personal and public components of impairment.

11. With regard to the personal component, the HCPC submitted that, in the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, there is likely to be a risk of repetition.

12. With regard to the public component, the HCPC submitted that, given the seriousness of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted, there would be an ongoing risk of significant harm to the public, in particular young people, whom the Registrant might encounter in educational establishments, should his fitness to practise not be restricted. The HCPC further submitted that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if a registrant, who had been convicted of such serious sexual offences concerning children, were permitted to practise without restriction.

The Panel’s decision on Impairment

13. The Panel applied the guidance contained in the HCPC Practice Notes on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. The Panel noted the Registrant’s convictions were in breach of standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics that were in place at the relevant time which states that “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

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

16. With regard to the personal element of impairment, the Panel noted that the Registrant had pleaded Guilty to both offences at the Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court. However, he had not engaged with the HCPC in these proceedings or provided the Panel with any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation. The Panel noted the attitudinal nature of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted and considered that such behaviour was unlikely to be remediable. The Panel considered that there is a significant risk of repetition. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired having regard to the personal component.

17. With regard to the public component of impairment, the Panel considered that the Registrant presents an ongoing risk to members of the public, particularly children and young people. The Panel also took into account the responsibility of the HCPC to uphold proper standards of conduct on the part of members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that, given the serious nature of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted, public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be seriously undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Paramedic is also impaired in respect of the public component.

Decision on Sanction

18. The Panel carefully considered the submissions by Mr Maughan.

19. The Panel received no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

20. Mr Maughan did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction but drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy concerning offences relating to indecent images of children.

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

22. The only mitigating factor is that the Registrant pleaded Guilty to the offences.

23. The aggravating factors are the Registrant’s failure to engage in these proceedings and the absence of any evidence as to remorse, insight and any attempted remediation.

24. The Panel noted and endorsed the following guidance at paragraph 89 of the HCPC’s Sanctions Guidance:

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

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

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

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

27. The Panel was unable to formulate conditions of practice which would be relevant or appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted.

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

29. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states:

“A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving …. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children”.

30. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:

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

31. The Panel concluded that the only appropriate sanction was a Striking Off Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Keith S Cameron from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the Court of Session against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Application

Mr Maughan made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover a potential appeal on the grounds that such an order is necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest,

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for ​​Keith S Cameron​