Craig Carnell

Preliminary Matters
1. The Panel has been convened to undertake the final, substantive hearing of the HCPC’s allegation against the Registrant, Mr Craig Carnell, a Paramedic.

2. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary applications were identified to the Panel.

The Registrant’s application that the hearing should be conducted in private.
3. A document prepared by the Registrant and dated 24 May 2025, set out an application that the hearing should be conducted in private. The document submitted that a private hearing would ensure fairness while also safeguarding the Registrant’s privacy, professional reputation and personal well-being. It also submitted that in the interests of justice, his case is with an “innocence project” which is considering all avenues of the right of an appeal against the conviction in issue, and that to have a public hearing might further negatively further impact on any further court appearances and might sway the decision of a future jury. Health issues were also included as a basis for ensuring privacy. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Weldrick made oral submissions that accorded with those supplied in writing.

4. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer submitted that any private part of the hearing should be restricted to mention of the Registrant’s health, but not to health issues that were disclosed in the public proceedings in the Crown Court.

5. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the matter from the Legal Assessor and also paid close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Conducting Hearings in Private”. Accordingly, the Panel made its decision on the basis that the default position is that hearings should be conducted in public. For that reason, clear and cogent reasons should exist for directing that a hearing, or part of a hearing, should be conducted in private. The conclusion of the Panel was that the only factor that could engage the grounds on which the hearing should be conducted in private is the Registrant’s health. Accordingly, the Panel directed that any mention of the Registrant’s health (including any mention of matters that were mentioned in the Crown Court hearing) should be conducted in a private part of the hearing.

The Registrant’s application for redaction of documents in the hearing bundle.
6. By a document dated 24 May 2025, with the heading, “Subject: Bundle contents for hearing (FTP-92633)”, the Registrant applied for exclusion or redaction of elements included in the referral to the HCPC made by his former employer and elements of the transcript of the comments of the Judge who sentenced him. In oral submissions, Mr Weldrick made it clear that it was only the element of the referral document that he wished the Panel to consider. The objection taken by and on behalf of the Registrant was that his former employer had stated to the HCPC that when the Registrant appeared in the Magistrates’ Court he had, “…. offered no plea to all charges…..”. The Registrant contended that this was inaccurate as in fact he had pleaded not guilty (something he stated in his self-referral made a short time after the referral made by his former employer).

7. The Presenting Officer submitted that this factual dispute was not an issue that should result in redaction of a document.

8. The Panel accepted from the Legal Assessor that there can be many circumstances that might lead to a need for a document to be redacted. Most obviously, personal information that might result in a person being identified should lead to redaction. Furthermore, information that is prejudicial but not probative of a relevant issue will often be redacted. However, the Panel did not consider that the passage in the referral was one that should be redacted. It was disputed as factually accurate by the Registrant, and, if it were to be construed as suggesting anything other than that the Registrant had not admitted the charges made against him, very likely to be inaccurate. However, that was not a reason for requiring it to be redacted.
The Registrant’s response to the allegation.

9. When the Allegation was read at the commencement of the hearing and an opportunity was extended for the Registrant to respond to it, Mr Weldrick stated that the Registrant admitted Particular 1 but denied Particular 2.

Background
10. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic. At the time of the offence with which this case is concerned, he was employed as a Paramedic by West Midlands Ambulance Service (“WMAS”), based at the Worcester Ambulance Hub. He was first employed as a Trainee Technician on 30 May 2017, progressed to a Technician on 13 August 2018 and was employed as a Paramedic from 18 March 2020.

11. On 7 December 2023, WMAS referred the Registrant to the HCPC. The referral stated that it was understood that the Registrant had been arrested on 4 December 2023 in respect of offences of a sexual nature relating to a child. WMAS communicated its understanding that the Registrant had remained in custody until he appeared in the Magistrates’ Court on 6 December 2023, when he was released on bail to attend the Worcester Crown Court.

12. On 18 December 2023, the Registrant referred himself to the HCPC. He stated that he had been arrested on 4 December 2023, and had been charged with three offences on 6 December 2023. He stated that the charges were as follows:
1) Attempted sexual communication with a child
2) Attempting to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming
3) Attempting to arrange/facilitate penetrative sexual activity with a child
In his referral, the Registrant stated that he had pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and had been granted bail with a single condition, namely that he must not associate with any person under the age of 16, directly or indirectly or via social media, save for occasions in everyday life. He also stated that WMAS had dismissed him from his employment on 13 December 2023, and that he was proposing to appeal against that decision on the basis that he had not been found guilty of any offences.

13. The documents presented to the Panel disclose that at the Worcester Crown Court on 25 January 2024, the Registrant pleaded guilty to two offences, namely that attempted sexual communication with a child on the 04 December 2023 and arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence on the same date.

14. The circumstances of the offences were described in the transcript of the remarks made by the Judge who sentenced the Registrant on 12 March 2024. A Police Officer had been deployed to represent himself as a 14-year-old boy on a website that was intended to be used by people of 18 years of age or older. During communications, the Police Officer on two occasions stated that he was 14 years old, and, when he repeated it, not being sure that the Registrant had noted the remark on the first occasion, the Registrant’s response was, “Well, if you don’t tell, I won’t.” The Registrant pressed for a meeting on the day of the communications, travelled to the rendezvous location in his car and was seen by Police Officers walking about there. There was, of course, no meeting because the 14-year-old boy did not exist. However, the sentencing Judge stated that the materials found in the Registrant’s car represented significant evidence of planning. The Judge found that the Registrant had gone to the location with the intention of engaging in mutual oral sex with a person he believed to be 14 years of age.

15. On 12 March 2024, the Registrant was sentenced in respect of these two offences. The sentence imposed was imprisonment for 28 months, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 10 years and a requirement to register with the Police as a sex offender for a period of 10 years.

Decision on Facts and Ground
16. It has already been recorded that an admission of the fact of the conviction was made on the Registrant’s behalf at the commencement of the hearing. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor in terms that accorded with the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Admissions”. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that it could (but was not required to) find Particular 1 proven on the basis of the admission.

17. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to make a finding that Particular 1 was proven on the basis of the admission made on behalf of the Registrant. In reaching this decision the Panel was mindful of the fact that the Registrant had the benefit of representation by Counsel, and that the admission was consistent with the documents relating to the conviction included in the hearing bundle.

18. Finding the conviction to be proven constituted both the factual finding and the statutory ground relied upon in this case. It followed that the Panel was required to go on to consider the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise.

Decision on Impairment
19. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer submitted that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise should be made in respect of both the personal and public components. He first addressed the public component, submitting that a sexual offence concerning a child was a serious matter, and the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending was demonstrated by the length of the custodial element of the sentence (which, although the Registrant is currently released on licence, runs until about July 2026) as well as the length of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order (which runs until March 2034). He submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined were there to be no finding of current impairment of fitness to practise. In relation to the personal component, the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Courts have stated that matters of personal remediation will often be of secondary importance when the issue is of the type being considered in this case. Nevertheless, the Presenting Officer submitted that the documents supplied by the Registrant strongly indicated a lack of insight on his part. For these reasons, the HCPC submitted that a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise should be made in respect of both components.

20. The Panel received and considered the following documents provided on behalf of the Registrant:
• The document dated 24 May 2025, entitled, “Subject: Bundle contents for hearing (FTP-92633)”.
• The document dated 24 May 2025, entitled, “Subject: Insight and Remediation (FTP-92633).
• The document dated 24 May 2025, entitled, “Subject: Request for a Private Tribunal Hearing (FTP-92633).
• A testimonial dated 28 May 2025 prepared by Mr AC (this document was provided to the Panel after it retired to consider its decision on impairment of fitness to practise following submissions by the advocates).

21. Mr Weldrick made oral submissions on behalf of the Registrant. He addressed the three issues contained in paragraph 22 of the relevant Practice Note, namely whether the issue was remediable, whether it had been remediated and whether there was a risk of repetition. He submitted that the matter was remediated as the conviction was an aberration in an otherwise blameless life, there having been no previous convictions or disciplinary issues concerning the Registrant. He submitted that the Registrant had undertaken ethics training with the College of Paramedics to strengthen his understanding of the importance of professional ethics. With regard to whether there is a risk of repetition, Mr Weldrick submitted that the Registrant had engaged in structured self-reflection and had engaged deeply with the core issue. He had undergone counselling and therapy and would seek further help of that sort. Given the mechanisms the Registrant had put in place and the degree of insight achieved, it was submitted that there is no risk of repetition. Mr Weldrick also submitted that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise should not be made in the respect of the public component.

22. When the Panel made its decision on the issue it reminded itself of the guidance contained in the relevant Practice Note, and that the issue is whether there is impairment of fitness to practise at the present time.

Personal component.
23. The Panel began its discussion by deciding whether a matter of the sort in issue in this case, namely a conviction of a serious criminal offence which involved an intention to have sexual contact with a child, is a matter that is capable of remediation. The conclusion of the Panel was that, as the issue is one of a very serious behavioural matter reflecting a significant attitudinal deficit, it is one that is conceptually difficult to remediate. The Panel was of the view that, although remediation would be difficult to demonstrate, it would be possible to provide information from which a conclusion could be reached that repetition would be unlikely.

24. When the Panel considered whether there was in fact information in the present case from which a conclusion could be reached that repetition would be unlikely, it considered documents provided by the Registrant. These included a number of statements that indicated that the Registrant quite simply does not accept that he acted in the manner demonstrated by the criminal charges he pleaded guilty to. He stated that he is exploring all avenues to appeal the conviction. He wrote that he denied that the Police Officer had posed as a 14-year-old boy. He wrote that he knew the person he was communicating with was not a child and suspected it was an identified person whom he wished to warn off. He wrote that he believed that he was coerced into committing an offence by the undercover Police Officer.

25. Curiously, in contrast to the Registrant’s own documents, the Panel noted the Registrant had provided a reference from a friend, Mr AC, who stated: “he has expressed nothing but remorse for his actions to me and makes no excuses for his behaviour”.

26. The Panel should make it very clear that the Registrant is perfectly entitled to take any view he chooses of the events in which he was involved, and he is not be punished or penalised for making that choice. But at the same time, when the Panel is required to reach important decisions on any risk he now presents, that decision can only properly be made on the basis of the view he has communicated. In the view of the Panel, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a view to be taken that a matter will not be repeated if there is no acceptance that the events in question occurred in the first instance. The Registrant’s case as outlined in the immediately preceding paragraph have resulted in the Panel concluding that he does not accept that he acted in the way the convictions prove he did. That being the case, despite the courses and reflection outlined (in relation to which the Panel has received very limited evidence or detail) the Panel found there was a high risk of repetition.

27. For these reasons the Panel has concluded that there is personal component impairment of fitness to practise.

Public component.

28. For the reasons explained in relation to the decision made on the personal component, the Panel has concluded that there remains a risk of repetition of inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Registrant. It is a fact that no harm resulted from the Registrant’s behaviour in December 2023, but the absence of harm was fortuitous as it was the Registrant’s intention that he should have penetrative sexual contact with a child. Were there to be a repetition of such behaviour there would be a clear and obvious risk of harm resulting from it.

29. All health professionals are required to observe high standards of personal behaviour, and members of the public are entitled to expect Paramedics to be reliable individuals. Paramedics encounter members of the public when they are acutely vulnerable, when they might be unconscious or undressed and very unwell. Also, Paramedics need to be trusted to go into the homes of those they are attending and be alone with patients.

30. It is apparent from the documents he has prepared within the last week that the Registrant does not understand how behaviour when not at work has an impact on his fitness to practise as a Paramedic. He has written, “Regarding my professional reputation, none of this occurred whilst on duty or representing the NHS or ambulance service in any way. This was never disclosed to any party and this case was a entirely a private matter. I am not here in front of this panel due to a problem with my knowledge, skills or a procedure that I performed and this HCPC-TS tribunal does not involve any specific service user. In fact, my conduct as a Paramedic is exemplary and I stand up for peoples rights whether they are gay, bisexual, blue, yellow, pink.” He also wrote, “The arrest and conviction had nothing to do with my profession as it did not involve it.”

31. In the judgement of the Panel this is an alarming misunderstanding of how actions of a professional person when not working can affect their fitness to practise in their professional life. It is a misunderstanding that increases the risk of repetition of behaviour outside the workplace that has professional consequences.

32. In the view of the Panel, public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the regulation of it would be seriously undermined were the view not taken that it is necessary to place a restriction on the ability of a Paramedic to practise who has been demonstrated to have acted as the Registrant did. The fact that the Registrant is still subject to a term of imprisonment and will be subject to the Sexual Harm Prevention Order and the notification requirement for many years to come, only serve to underline that fact.

33. Furthermore, the Panel would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper professional standards were there to be no finding of current impairment of fitness to practise.

Conclusion on current impairment of fitness to practise.
34. The result of these findings is that there is impairment of fitness to practise in respect of both the personal and public components. The consequence of that finding is that the Panel must go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction
35. The written determination appearing above explaining the Panel’s reasons for finding the allegation well founded was handed down at the end of the first day of the hearing. The parties were given time to consider the document before making submissions on sanction at the commencement of the second day of the hearing.

36. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer stated that the HCPC did not submit that the Panel should impose any particular sanction. Rather, he urged the Panel to have regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy, and he also drew the attention to various passages in that document, particularly those appearing under the heading “Serious Cases” dealing with sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children and criminal convictions. He also drew the attention of the Panel to the passages in the Sanctions Policy which suggested the approach that the Panel should take when a registrant is subject to ancillary orders made in a criminal court, such as a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and the requirement to register with the police as a sex offender. The Presenting Officer also identified a number of matters he submitted should be regarded as aggravating factors and suggested the Registrant’s guilty plea in the Crown Court could be considered as a mitigating factor.

37. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Weldrick submitted that the Panel should impose a Suspension Order. Making reference to the factors set out in paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy, he submitted that the Registrant has insight, the issues are unlikely to be repeated, and that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy the failings identified by this case. As a background to the criminal offence, he made submissions to the Panel concerning difficulties that the Registrant had encountered as a result of working during the Covid-19 pandemic as well as an issue that had occurred in the Registrant’s private life. His isolation left him with only his phone for company. Mr Weldrick also referred to the measures already recorded by the Panel in its decision on impairment of fitness to practise that have been taken by the Registrant. He also submitted that the existence of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order that had been imposed in the Crown Court, and which is due to run until March 2034, would make it “functionally impossible” for the Registrant to repeat the behaviour that underpins the conviction. He also submitted that the Registrant had undergone an “eye opening” experience in serving time in prison and being subject to these fitness to practise proceedings, and that these matters impressed upon the Registrant the importance of being careful.

38. In view of the fact that Mr Weldrick had referred to the Sexual Harm Prevention Order in his submissions as a relevant factor, the Panel asked about the terms of that Order. After taking instructions, Mr Weldrick informed the Panel of the elements of the Order and a copy of it was subsequently provided to the Panel.

39. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor concerning the approach it should take when making a decision on sanction. A sanction should not be imposed to punish the Registrant. Rather, a sanction should only be imposed to the extent that it is necessary to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the Paramedic profession and the regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. The finding that an allegation is well founded does not of itself require the imposition of a sanction. Logically, therefore, the first question is whether the particular finding made requires the imposition of any sanction. If it does, the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness until one is reached that sufficiently addresses the factors already identified. In undertaking this process, the Panel is required to consider the terms of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach in reaching the decision that will be explained. In particular, the Panel considered all the available sanctions despite the fact that Mr Weldrick did not contend that a sanction less restrictive than suspension should be imposed.

40. The Panel began its deliberations by assessing the factors that would be relevant to the issue of sanction. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to repeat all of what has already been stated by the Panel in its decisions already made and announced. However, it is appropriate to say that these factors were uppermost in the mind of the Panel:
• The Panel is dealing with a conviction for a very serious criminal offence. The seriousness of it is demonstrated by the sentence imposed.
• The Panel has found that the lack of insight means that there is a significant risk of repetition. The Panel did not accept the submissions made by Mr Weldrick that the Registrant had good insight. The Registrant’s written representations demonstrate some understanding of the seriousness of sexual offences concerning children, but, given that he denies that he was in fact guilty of the offences to which he pleaded guilty, there is no insight into his own behaviour.
• Were the Registrant to repeat the behaviour of which he was convicted there would be a clear risk to children. For the reasons already explained, the fact that the past incident did not result in harm was purely fortuitous and was despite the Registrant’s intentions to have penetrative sexual contact with a child.
• The Panel cannot prevent how the Registrant behaves in any aspect of his life save when he is acting as a Paramedic, but in respect of that activity, the Panel is of the clear view that he could not be permitted to practise as a Paramedic in circumstances where he might have contact with children. This is a judgement of the Panel made independently of any other prohibition.
• The Panel is of the view that fair-minded members of the public would be aghast were they to discover that a Paramedic who had attended them or a close family member was subject to a term of imprisonment, was required to register as a sex offender and was subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and that is so even if the person attended was not a child.

41. It has already been recorded that the Presenting Officer made submissions about aggravating factors. In the view of the Panel, the identified factors were simply the reasons why this was an offence of the utmost seriousness. If the plea of guilty in the Crown Court is a mitigating factor given the Registrant’s case that he was not in fact guilty of the offence, then it is one of little significance when weighted against the seriousness of the factors set out in the immediately preceding paragraph.

42. With these findings in mind, the Panel addressed the questions it was required to answer. This is a case in which a sanction is required. To pass from the case without a sanction being imposed would provide no protection against the risk of repetition, nor would it sufficiently address the gravity of the matter. For the same reasons, the Panel rejected a Caution Order as an appropriate outcome.

43. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order, and in that context it paid attention to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy. The conclusion was that there is no condition of practice that can be imposed to mitigate against the risk of repetition of the sort of behaviour reflected in the conviction and no condition of practice that could ensure that, were he to return to practise as a Paramedic, the Registrant would not be required to attend to a child. The Panel rejected a Conditions of Practice Order as one that would be appropriate in this case.

44. Paragraph 110 of the Sanctions Policy is in these terms:
A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

a. the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

b. the registrant has insight;
c. the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

d. there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

45. It has already been recorded that Mr Weldrick submitted on behalf of the Registrant that the outcome of this case should be the imposition of a Suspension Order, as well as to the fact that Mr Weldrick made submissions as to why he made that suggestion.

46. The Panel did not agree with the submission made by Mr Weldrick. This is indeed a case which involves a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. But that element apart, none of the factors suggested in paragraph 121 applies to this case. The Registrant does not have insight. The issues are likely to be repeated, and there is no evidence that the Registrant will be likely or able to resolve his failings for the simple reason he does not acknowledge the past failings.

47. The imposition of a Suspension Order would have the effect that the Registrant would be prohibited from practising as a Paramedic for the duration of the order. The maximum period of a Suspension Order is 12 months. In the judgement of the Panel, the factors that require the Registrant to be removed from Paramedic practice now would apply just as much in 12 months from now. Despite the fact that a Suspension Order would be reviewed before expiry, it would not be legitimate for the Panel to impose a Suspension Order at the present time in the expectation that it would be renewed time and time again upon sequential reviews.

48. Having rejected a Suspension Order as an appropriate outcome, the Panel necessarily arrived at consideration of a Striking Off Order. The Panel fully appreciated the seriousness of making such an Order. However, the Panel was satisfied that the present case fell within a category of case contemplated by paragraphs 130 and 131 of the Sanctions Policy. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that no lesser sanction would sufficiently address the crucial issue of public confidence. In short, the Registrant’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration on the register of health professionals.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed strike the name of Craig Carnell from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales 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
1. After the Panel announced its decision that the substantive sanction would be that of a Striking Off Order, the Presenting Officer applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. He submitted that the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues resulted in an Interim Order being necessary for protection of members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. In submitting that the Order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months, the Presenting Officer argued that if the Registrant did appeal the Panel’s decision, an appeal could take at least that length of time to be finally disposed of.

2. When invited to make submissions on behalf of the Registrant, Mr Weldrick stated that there were no submissions.

Decision

3. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application. It also had regard to the section entitled, “Interim orders” between paragraphs 133 and 135 of the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, ”Interim Orders”. Accordingly, it was first required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application. If satisfied that it had jurisdiction, it must then consider whether there are risks that satisfied one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an interim order. Those grounds are, (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest, and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant. Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an interim order. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach.

4. Included in the notice of hearing email sent to the Registrant on 7 April 2025, the following paragraph appeared: “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 concluded that this afforded the Registrant the opportunity of making representations on the issue of whether an interim order should be made, and for that reason provided jurisdiction for the application to be considered by the Panel.

5. Whilst acknowledging the default position that there is no restriction on a registrant’s restriction while their appeal rights remain outstanding, the Panel concluded that in the present case, an interim order is required. It is necessary for protection of members of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in its substantive sanction decision.

6. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period, but concluded that, for the same reasons a substantive conditions of practise order was not appropriate, interim conditions of practice would not provide sufficient protection.

7. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

8. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order made should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An order of that length is necessary because the final resolution of an appeal could well take 18 months if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Order, the interim order will simply fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal passes.

INTERIM ORDER
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 Craig Carnell