Mr Daniel Rothery

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. As the Registrant was not in attendance the Panel had to be satisfied that service of the Notice of Hearing had been sent to him, in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Panel) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”), before moving on to consider whether it would be appropriate to proceed in his absence.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of an email dated 29 November 2024, sent to the Registrant at his registered email address, giving notice of the hearing. The Notice of Hearing informed the Registrant of the hearing time, the date and that the hearing would be conducted remotely by video conference. Information was included about how the Registrant could apply for a postponement, should he have wished to do so, and the Panel’s power to proceed in his absence, in the event that he did not attend.

3. The Panel therefore determined that service had been complied with in accordance with the Rules.
Proceeding in absence

4. With the Registrant not present, Mr Slack made an application to proceed in his absence.

5. The Panel heard and accepted the legal advice from the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the case of the GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and the principles to be considered when deciding whether or not to proceed in the absence of a Registrant. The Panel also referred to the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (“HCPTS”) Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’. The Panel had in mind the need to exercise its discretion to proceed with the utmost care and caution, particularly as the Registrant was not represented.

6. The Panel noted that the Registrant had self-referred, so would be aware that the HCPC was carrying to an investigation. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was, or should be, aware that the hearing was due to go ahead on 17 March 2025 and that, in the event that he did not attend, the hearing could go ahead in his absence, as detailed in the Notice of Hearing. The Registrant had not responded to the Notice of Hearing, nor had he responded to emails sent by the Hearings Officer on 10 and 14 March 2025, asking him to confirm attendance and sending him the link to join the hearing, should he have wished to do so. The Panel was confident that the Registrant would have received those emails as they were sent to the same email address that the Registrant had used on 5 August 2024, to respond to an email sent to him by Capsticks Solicitors, on behalf of the HCPC. That was the last contact from the Registrant: he was asking a Senior Paralegal at Capsticks if his upcoming hearing would be listed on the HCPTS website.

7. The Panel noted that the Registrant faced serious allegations, there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously and there was a witness in attendance. The Panel considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose, because it seemed most unlikely that the Registrant would attend on another occasion. Furthermore, the Panel noted he had not requested an adjournment. In light of the Registrant’s almost complete lack of engagement with this process, the Panel decided that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present and his right to be represented at this hearing.

8. The Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the matter should proceed notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant. The Panel would draw no adverse inference from the Registrant’s non-attendance and take into account any information within the papers that furthered his case.
Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private

9. Mr Slack made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private when making reference to health matters connected to a witness in this case, in order to protect their privacy. Mr Slack said this would only be during the hearsay application.

10. The Panel considered the application with care, accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on making decisions on whether to proceed in private. The Panel noted that the Rules allow for the hearing, or part of the hearing, to be held in private where to do so is necessary to protect the private life of any party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Panel agreed that where mention was made of a witness’ health, those parts of the hearing would be heard in private, in order to protect her privacy.
Application to admit hearsay evidence.

11. The HCPC wished to rely on the witness statement and exhibits of DC Beeton, without calling her to give live evidence. Mr Slack said that this was a fresh application to admit DC Beeton’s evidence. The HCPC initially applied to have DC Beeton’s evidence admitted as hearsay evidence on 9 January 2025, when a Conduct and Competence Panel stated:
“The Panel decided that fairness, particularly to the Registrant, would be best achieved by calling BB to give live evidence and produce her witness statements and exhibits. Therefore, the application to admit her witness statements and exhibits (BB01, BB03, and BB04) as hearsay evidence is refused.”

12. Mr Slack pointed out that the previous decision had been made on the basis that, as per paragraph 36 of its determination, ‘the Panel kept in mind that BB is willing to attend and give evidence’, and that ‘the reason for her non-attendance is not based on her unwillingness to attend but on the HCPC’s submission that she is essentially a production witness who has no direct evidence’. Mr Slack informed the Panel that unfortunately, this was no longer the case. [Redacted]. As a result, Mr Slack said, she is now unable to attend the hearing and give live evidence.

13. Mr Slack submitted that there had been a material change in circumstances since the Panel’s previous decision. He invited the Panel to consider the matter afresh because there was now a good and cogent reason for DC Beeton’s non-attendance, that was not present when the first application was made.

14. Mr Slack submitted that the evidence of DC Beeton is relevant and it would be fair to admit it because it is non contentious and demonstrably reliable as it is not challenged by the Registrant.

15. Mr Slack added that, at paragraph 26 of its decision, the previous Panel made clear that DC Beeton’s evidence is neither sole nor decisive, as another witness provides evidence containing admissions from the Registrant to the underlying factual basis of the allegation. The previous Panel noted that the Registrant denied only that his actions were sexually motivated, and so ‘the nature and extent of challenge was therefore minimal’. Furthermore, that Panel acknowledged, at paragraph 28, that there was no evidence to suggest that DC Beeton had fabricated her evidence, or had a cogent motive to do so, particularly bearing in mind that the evidence she provides is not contested by the Registrant.

16. Perhaps most crucially, said Mr Slack, the previous Panel made clear that ‘sexual motivation, statutory grounds, and impairment are all matters for a final hearing panel’. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement that DC Beeton’s evidence may assist the Panel, as ‘evidence that is drawn out within hearings can often assist a panel in reaching its decisions’, Mr Slack submitted that the matters that remain in contention (sexual motivation, statutory grounds, and impairment) are matters for this Panel, and not DC Beeton’s evidence.

17. Mr Slack said that it was a matter for this Panel to determine whether or not the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated. This was not something that DC Beeton could give evidence or authoritative answers on. As such, he submitted, there would be no prejudice to the Registrant in admitting her evidence as hearsay.

18. The Panel considered the application with care and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was able to follow the reasoning of the previous Panel in not allowing DC Beeton’s statement to be read, but acknowledge that the situation was different now. There was a clear reason for DC Beeton’s absence and the Panel accepted that this changed matters. Her evidence was clearly relevant. It was not the sole and decisive evidence and she was essentially a witness who produced exhibits. The Registrant was not here to question her and there were no obvious questions that could be put to her on his behalf in his absence, since he did not appear to contest her evidence. Furthermore, the Registrant had been notified that this application was to be made and had not raised any objection to it.

19. The Panel considered the statement and exhibits of DC Beeton to be important evidence in explaining the background to the case and they come from a reliable source, namely a police officer.

20. The Panel could not envisage any prejudice being caused to the Registrant by allowing DC Beeton’s evidence to be admitted as hearsay. In such circumstances, and bearing in mind the over-arching objective to protect the public, the Panel considered the admission of this evidence was in the interests of justice and, accordingly, the application was granted.
Background

21. The Registrant is a Paramedic registered with the HCPC. At the relevant time he was working as a Paramedic for the East of England Ambulance Service Trust (EEAST).

22. This Allegation stems from contact made by the Police to EEAST about the Registrant contacting another adult male in May 2023 on the social media site Kik (the other male ‘Max’ was in fact an undercover Police Officer). The Registrant messaged ‘Max’ to the effect that he was grooming a 14-year-old friend of his sister, stating that he “gets into bed with her, and she lets him touch her over clothing.”

23. As a result, Christopher Connor, the Assistant General Manager for North West Essex Trust, was instructed to conduct an investigation under the EEAST Disciplinary Policy. This investigation was commissioned by Mr Connor on 16 August 2023.

24. Following this, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC on 23 August 2023.

25. Mr Connor’s investigation culminated in a disciplinary hearing on 29 November 2023, with an outcome letter sent to the Registrant shortly thereafter.

26. During the investigation the Registrant admitted sending the messages in question. He also made the same admissions to the Police when they attended and spoke with him. He was not able to give any explanation for why he had sent the messages, but denied having any sexual interest in children.

27. On 9 January 2025, a Conduct and Competence Panel determined at a Preliminary Hearing that the evidence provided by ‘Max’, exhibited by DC Beeton at BB/02, was to be admitted as hearsay evidence.
Decision on Facts

28. In reaching its decisions on the facts the Panel took into account the evidence provided by the witness called by the HCPC and all the documentary evidence. The Panel also took into account the submissions made by Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant was not present, however the Panel did take into account what he said in his interview at work and to the Police when they spoke to him. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and bore in mind that it was for the HCPC to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It was not for the Registrant to disprove the allegations.

29. The Panel heard live evidence from Mr Christopher Connor, a Paramedic Investigator and, at the time, Assistant General Manager for North West Essex (Colchester) for EEAST. The Panel also took into account the hearsay evidence of DC Beeton, a Police Officer, following its earlier ruling on the admissibility of DC Beeton’s statement and the hearsay evidence of ‘Max” the undercover Police Officer. Although this evidence was hearsay, the Panel was able to give it significant weight because the Registrant had admitted sending the messages in question. The Panel also had the benefit of screen shots of the messages sent and received.
1. Between on or around 25 April 2023 to 15 May 2023:
a. you sent one or more of the messages set out in Schedule 1 to Person A, as identified in Schedule 2;
b. you sent a message to Person A regarding sexual contact with a child.

Schedule 1
1.1 “Hi who you active with”, “Who and what do you do and not yet just working on one”,14g”, “Sister friend” “What do you do with them”, “Danm [sic] that’s hot who’s she to you and she lets me touch her over clothes and get in bed with her.”

Schedule 2
Person A – Police Officer posing as a member of the public “Dosco stick”.

30. In his investigation report, Mr Connor said that following contact from the Police, EEAST was made aware that in May 2023 the Registrant, whilst in conversation with another adult male on social media, messaged that he was grooming a 14-year-old female known to his sister. In the messages the Registrant stated that he got into bed with her and she lets the Registrant touch her over clothing. A total of five messages were sent. As stated above, the Panel was provided with the screen shots of the messages.

31. In the initial fact find carried out by Ms Jemma Varela (Head of Operations) on 9 August 2023, the Registrant said he was alone when he sent the messages, but said he did not know why he had done it.

32. On 24 August 2023, the Registrant (DR) was interviewed by Ms Alison Cunnell (AC), Investigating Officer, and asked the following questions:
AC: Can you give me a reason why you posted this message?
DR: No reason, don't know why I did it.
AC: Have you spoken before, in any other chats about young girls and grooming?
DR: No.
AC: Do you know this 14 year-old girl can you explain?
DR: Not an actual person, it's a made up person.
AC: Do you have a sister, how old is your sister?
DR: I have a sister and she is 22 years old.
AC: Does your sister have 14-year-old friends?
DR: She has no younger friends.
AC: Does this girl exist?
DR: She doesn't exist.
AC: Do you have sexual interest in children, please explain?
DR: I've no interest children, no reason why I wrote it.
AC: Is this a fantasy that you wish to explore?
DR: No, not a fantasy.
AC: Were you watching TV, anything that you may have been watching, listening to?
DR: No.
AC: Were these chats late at night?
DR: I can't remember.
AC: Do you have these types of thoughts in general?
DR: No thoughts before this and no thoughts now.
…
AC: One of Kik App features keeps you anonymous, do you think that gave you more of a reason to do it?
DR: Probably yes.
AC: Why did you feel the other person was happy to receive your comments?
DR: I don't know, there was no indication. I don't know.
AC: What was the reaction/goal you were looking for?
DR: Didn't really think it through any further.
AC: You were chatting with this person, did you suddenly think halfway through? I'm going to write this, or did you think prior to the chat? I'm going to write that?
DR: I didn't intend to do this, I don't know why I did it. I don't really understand myself why I did it really.

33. During the interview, the Registrant said he was 24 years old and had been using the Kik App since he was 17. He said the purpose of the App was to talk to strangers and it could be about anything, such as music, TV or sport. The Registrant said he had now deleted the App and no longer used it. He acknowledged that his behaviour in sending these messages could potentially bring the Trust into disrepute.

34. The Panel noted that the Registrant had admitted in this interview that he had sent the messages referred to. Mr Connor gave evidence that “Kik App is primarily a messaging app. It allows users to live stream, private messages and join public groups. Kik App allows users to remain anonymous and has been raising alarm to police as being breeding grounds for sexual predators, as Kik’s strong emphasis on privacy and anonymity.”

35. The Registrant admitted during the investigation meeting that he was aware of the features of Kik App and that it keeps you anonymous and he said that was probably a factor in him posting the message. When asked if had been drinking alcohol, the Registrant said “No, I don’t drink.”

36. The Registrant also admitted sending the messages during the formal disciplinary hearing on 29 November 2023. The record of that hearing states as follows:
“The Police had been contacted in May 2023 about a comment DR had made on a messaging platform that he had been grooming a 14-year-old girl, who he had been in bed with and she had let him touch her over her clothes. It was considered this may have breached the Equality Act. DR admitted he had said this, but explained the 14-year-old girl was hypothetical and did not exist.”

37. Mr Connor said that the police took no further action because no female had been identified in this case. He added that the police had spoken to the Registrant at his home address, where he admitted posting the messages. He told the Police that there was no 14-year-old, it was made up and he does not have a sexual interest in children. On the information obtained, the Police decided there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case on criminal grounds. The admissions to the police were documented in the Crime Report provided to the Panel.

38. In light of the evidence of Mr Connor, the hearsay evidence of DC Beeton and ‘Max’ and the unchallenged admissions made by the Registrant, when spoken to by the police, during fact-finding, his interview with Ms Cunnell and the Disciplinary Hearing, the panel found this allegation proved in full.
2. Your conduct at paragraph 1(a) and/or 1(b) was sexually motivated.

39. In reaching its decision on Particular 2, the Panel followed the guidance provided in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind.’ The Legal Assessor made reference to the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), which is also referred to in the Practice Note. In that case it was stated that in determining sexual motivation, panels must decide whether the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Practice Note goes on to say 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.

40. During his oral evidence, Mr Connor was asked whether the Registrant understood and appreciated the seriousness of sending the messages. Mr Connor said, “Throughout our pre-investigation, the investigation and the formal hearing, the Registrant was given countless opportunities to explain or mitigate his behaviour, but was not able to offer any explanation for sending the messages.” Mr Connor was confident that the Registrant would have understood the seriousness as reference was made during the investigation process to gross-misconduct.

41. In this case the Panel was satisfied that the words used in the messages were overtly sexual in nature, they referred to being ‘active’, and the Registrant asked Person A “what he did’, having referred to ‘14g’ and ‘Sister friend’ that’s ‘hot’. Person A responded saying “I lick and finger her and she sucks me which is hot. How far you got with the 14yo?”. The Registrant then responded, “Danm that’s hot who’s she to you and she lets me touch her over clothes and get in bed with her.” (sic) There was nothing ambiguous about these messages, which were clearly sexual in nature and although the Registrant had not offered any explanation for his conduct, it was a reasonable inference to draw that the Registrant was asking those questions in pursuit of some kind of sexual gratification.

42. In such circumstances, notwithstanding his assertions of not being sexually interested in children, the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant’s motivation when writing those messages was sexual. This is particularly so when considering how the Registrant continued to engage with Person A even after Person A made the messages overtly sexual. Furthermore, the exchanges took place over several days, with plenty of time for reflection.

43. The Panel took into account the evidence that the Registrant was given a number of opportunities to explain why he had done this and he always said the same thing, namely he did not know why he did it. At no time did the Registrant provide a plausible, innocent explanation.

44. In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore found Particular 2 proved.
Decision on Grounds

45. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. In so doing it took into account all the evidence and the submissions made by Mr Slack. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

46. In reaching its decision the Panel found there to be breaches of the 2016 Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics applicable to all HCPC registrants, namely:
2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

47. Any conduct relating to sexualised behaviour toward children is abhorrent and most concerning. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of R (Pitt and Tyas) v General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 809 (Admin), where the High Court made it clear that standards of practice apply not only in the traditional workplace environment and during working hours, but also beyond. The Court added that professionals typically accept the inclusion of a general standard not to bring their profession into disrepute whether in or out of the workplace.

48. In the Panel’s view this was extremely serious behaviour. It fell far short of the standard of behaviour expected from a Paramedic. It clearly brought discredit upon the Registrant, the profession and the Regulator, for one of its registrants to act in this way. Notwithstanding the fact that this behaviour took place within the Registrant’s private life, the Panel was in no doubt that other members of the profession and indeed the public would find this behaviour deplorable.
49. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
50. Having found the statutory ground of misconduct to be well-founded, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practice was impaired as a result of that misconduct. In doing so it took into account the submissions made by Mr Slack and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

51. The Panel found proved that the Registrant had involved himself in sexualised messaging about children on an anonymous internet platform. The Panel had found this behaviour to be sexually motivated. As it happens, the person the Registrant was interacting with was an undercover Police Officer, but he was not to know that. The Registrant has denied having a sexual interest in children, but has offered no explanation at all for why he engaged, and continued to engage, with Person A over several days and after Person A made it very clear they were referring to sexual acts with a child.

52. This sexually motivated behaviour is suggestive of a deep-seated attitudinal issue, which will be difficult to remediate and there was no evidence of any attempt by the Registrant to remediate. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered there to be a real risk that the Registrant would repeat his behaviour, particularly for so long as he remained in denial. The Panel was particularly aware that a Paramedic could have access to vulnerable children when acting in a solo role and this was a cause of great concern. The public are entitled to put their absolute trust in Paramedics who attend upon them, often in stressful situations where they are feeling at their most vulnerable. Paramedics are expected to act with decency, honesty and integrity.

53. The Panel considered that three of the four criteria identified by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report were engaged in this case. The actions of the Registrant had the potential to place vulnerable children at real risk of harm and the risk of repetition means that he is liable to place children at unwarranted risk of harm in the future. His conduct has undoubtedly brought his profession into disrepute and, with no insight or remediation, the Panel was of the view that he was liable to do so again in the future. The Panel had identified that the Registrant has breached a core requirement of all registrants, namely, to ensure their conduct justifies the public trust and confidence in him and the profession of Paramedics and finds that this amounts to a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. There remains a risk of repetition in the future. The Panel therefore found the Registrant’s fitness to practice currently impaired on the grounds of public protection.

54. The Panel went on to consider whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator significantly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made, given the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

55. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired both on public protection and public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well-founded.
Decision on Sanction

56. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Slack, together with all the relevant evidence and the very limited personal mitigation. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the Council in its Sanctions Policy (“SP”). The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

57. The SP provides specific guidance in relation to cases that involve sexual misconduct. It is stated that, “Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.” The SP goes on to state, “Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction.”

58. The Panel also noted that paragraph 79 of the SP states: “Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.” The Panel noted that no actual child was sexually abused in this case and the sexually motivated behaviour did not go beyond discussing it on the Kik App with ‘Max’, but the Panel considered that this paragraph had relevance to its determination on the appropriate sanction because the Registrant took the first steps towards such depraved behaviour.
59. The Panel had all this guidance in mind when deciding the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

60. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:
• sexualised behaviour directed towards children;
• a level of pre-meditation and/or reflection in that the exchanges took place over several days, rather than, for example, in one short burst;
• a lack of evidence of insight or remorse;
• a lack of evidence of remediation;
• a lack of engagement with these proceedings.

61. In the absence of the Registrant the Panel had no evidence before it of any mitigating factors, other than an absence of any previous disciplinary hearings before the HCPTS.

62. The Panel approached the ladder of sanction, beginning with the least restrictive sanction. In light of the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action or consider mediation, since neither would protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel or reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The same was true of a Caution Order.

63. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. The SP states that before imposing conditions a Panel should be satisfied that:
• the issues which the conditions seek to address are capable of correction;
• there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so;
• appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the registrant can be expected to comply with them; and
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether those conditions have or are being met.

64. The Panel noted from the SP that conditions will rarely be effective unless the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the issues they seek to address and can be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases:
• where the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process, lacks insight or denies any wrongdoing;
• where there are serious or persistent overall failings.

65. The Registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practice process. The Panel considered that referring to acting in a sexually motivated way towards a child is not something easily addressed by way of conditions. As referred to at the impairment stage, the Registrant’s behaviour suggests a deep-seated attitudinal issue, which he has yet to confront, at least as far as this Panel is aware. Furthermore, the Registrant lacks insight and appears to be in denial. He has not at any time offered any explanation for his actions.

66. At its highest, the Registrant appears to accept that what he did was wrong. During the investigation he said it was wrong to have sent the messages and when asked what was the worst part, he said it was in relation to the age. It is thus apparent that the Registrant is aware that what he did was wrong, not least because it referred to the age of 14. However, he had not expressly admitted any wrongdoing to the HCPC or this Panel and it could not be known if he was committed to resolving the issues any conditions would seek to address, or could be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. Even if it had been possible to formulate conditions, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct in this case.

67. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The SP states that, “Suspension should be considered where the allegation is of a serious nature but unlikely to be repeated and, thus, striking off is not merited.” The Panel reminded itself of its earlier findings of an absence of insight, sexually motivated behaviour aimed at children and the real risk of repetition. Although a Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration, the Panel was not satisfied that it would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process, or to send a clear message to the profession at large that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be a sufficient sanction in the circumstances of this case.

68. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the SP on making a Striking-Off Order so as to be able to decide whether such an Order would be appropriate in this case. The guidance states that, “Striking off is a sanction of last resort for serious, deliberate or reckless acts involving abuse of trust such as, sexual abuse, dishonesty or persistent failure.” It goes on to observe that “Striking off should be used where there is no other way to protect the public, for example, where there is a lack of insight, continuing problems or denial. A Registrant’s inability or unwillingness to resolve matters will suggest that a lower sanction may not be appropriate.” The Panel finds that this case is characterised by a lack of explanation, serious sexually motivated acts, a lack of insight, no remorse and no evidence of a willingness to resolve matters.

69. The SP goes on to suggest that a Striking-Off Order may be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the allegation are such that any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect or undermine confidence in the profession. The Panel’s earlier finding in relation to the consideration of a Suspension Order identified that a lesser sanction would indeed be insufficient to represent these wider public interest issues, in the specific circumstances of this case.

70. The Panel concluded that, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the lack of insight and remediation, leaving a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking-Off Order. The Panel took into account the impact this would have on the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public.

71. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking-Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Daniel Rothery from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

72. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack on the need for an Interim Order to cover the period during which an appeal may be made and, if one is made, whilst that appeal is in progress. Mr Slack applied for an Interim Suspension Order and asked that it be for 18 months.

73. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Decision

74. The Panel noted the contents of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant on 29 November 2024, where it is stated: “Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may also impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.” The Panel was satisfied this meant the Registrant was on notice that this was a possible outcome at this hearing.

75. The Panel made 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, in accordance with its reasoning above, and is necessary in light of the risks to the public identified. The Panel considered 18 months was appropriate and proportionate taking into account the likely length of any appeal, in the event that one is made.

76. 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 Mr Daniel Rothery