James Birdseye

Preliminary Matters

Proceeding in private

1. Mr Micklewright submitted that in order to protect the private life of the Registrant, any references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private. The Registrant supported this application. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that any references to the health of the Registrant will be received in private, but that otherwise this is a public hearing.

Background (as taken from the determination of the Substantive Order Panel)

2. The background to this matter as it appears in the determination of the Substantive `Order Panel is set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets;

‘(19) The Registrant is a HCPC registered Paramedic who was employed by South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) as a Band 6 Paramedic.

(20) On 22 June 2019 a concern was raised by a student Paramedic, Student A, after she was taken unwell during a shift with the Registrant. Student A had started to unexpectedly bleed vaginally whilst on shift and therefore the Registrant had offered his assistance.

(21) Student A’s concerns related to inappropriate sexualised behaviours allegedly displayed by the Registrant and a poor standard of treatment provided. The day started with a change of crew and Student A being moved to work with the Registrant, which was instigated by him. This led to a number of inappropriate and flirtatious comments made by the Registrant towards Student A.

(22) Later in the day Student A suffered a medical emergency and was treated by the Registrant. In particular, there was concern in respect of the appropriateness of the Registrant’s clinical examination and the treatment provided including, for example, that the Registrant did not obtain Student A’s consent to examine her. It was further alleged that the Registrant made inappropriate and flirtatious comments regarding Student A’s body.

(23) The Registrant submitted a self-referral form to the HCPC dated 26 June 2019 following his suspension from employment by the Trust.

(24) The Trust undertook an internal investigation. The Registrant resigned from his employment with the Trust on 04 November 2019.’

The hearing before the Substantive Order Panel

3. The matters came before a Substantive Fitness to Practise Panel in April 2024. The Registrant was not present and was not represented.

4. The Substantive Order Panel made the findings of fact that are identified above. The Substantive Order Panel concluded that the allegations found proven amounted to “serious professional misconduct” and met the threshold for the statutory ground of misconduct.

Decision of the Substantive Order Panel regarding impairment

5. The Substantive Order Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It found misconduct established with regard to both the personal and the public component. Its reasons for coming to this conclusion were fully set out in its determination and include those set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.

                            ‘(146) The Panel heard submissions from Mr Barnfield on behalf of the HCPC on the issue of impairment, accepted legal advice and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’.

(147) The Panel firstly considered the testimonials, the reflective piece and the CPD evidence submitted by the Registrant, and also the letter from Brabners Solicitors dated 09 December 2020. They noted that these documents had been submitted for the Investigating Committee Panel in December 2020 and that no new information had subsequently been provided. Whilst the testimonials are relevant, they are outdated, as the Panel must consider current impairment.

                            (148) In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public component and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time.

(149) In considering the personal component the Panel considered it appropriate to separate the conduct into two parts, the clinical errors, which they find are remediable, and the sexually motivated behaviour, which is attitudinal in nature and more difficult to remediate.

(150) The Panel noted that the Registrant had acknowledged Student A was vulnerable and had apologised and expressed remorse and regret for what is described as misplaced humour.

(151) The Panel finds that the Registrant’s conduct on 22 June 2019 was predatory in nature as Student A was new to the workplace, the Registrant had deliberately manipulated the crew rota sheets to ensure he was working with her, there was a power imbalance, and his comments across the day were said in an attempt to establish a future sexual relationship with Student A. To this extent the conduct was premeditated, demonstrated an abuse of his professional position and was not isolated in nature.

(152) The subsequent medical emergency, which could not have been foreseen, gave the Registrant an opportunity to exploit the situation to gain sexual gratification.

(153) The Panel finds that the Registrant has taken some remedial action but that it is limited.

(154) In considering insight the Panel finds that whilst the Registrant has demonstrated some insight it is very limited in nature and not fully developed.

(155) Due to the limited remediation and insight demonstrated, the Panel cannot rule out the risk of repetition. Particularly in relation to the sexually motivated behaviours the Panel has received no information that these are being or have been addressed. The Panel has received no recent information from the Registrant to be satisfied that there is no risk of repetition were he to return to practise as a Paramedic.

(156) The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired.

(157) The Panel next considered the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues.

(158) The Panel acknowledges the need to protect service users and colleagues and concludes that due to the lack of fully developed insight by the Registrant there is a risk of repetition which places service users and colleagues at risk of harm.

(159) In assessing the risk of harm, the Panel finds that there was harm caused to Student A which involved emotional harm and unwanted sexual harassment. Due to the fact that the Panel cannot discount the risk of repetition, this would place colleagues and potentially vulnerable service users at risk of harm from the Registrant. The Panel finds that sexually motivated behaviour within a team of Paramedics may result in a breakdown in trust amongst the wider team, which would impact upon the safe and effective delivery of care to the wider public.

(160) The Panel is under a duty to protect service users from harm and risk of harm and finds that, due to lack of fully developed insight and remediation, there remains a risk of the Registrant causing harm to service users and colleagues in the future.

(161) The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct, is wide ranging and fell short, in numerous areas, of what would be expected of a professional. The misconduct found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel finds that the misconduct is so serious that the public interest demands a finding of impairment.

(162) The Panel found that the Registrant had breached a number of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, and has failed in one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, seeking and obtaining consent, which brings the profession into disrepute.

(163) The Panel is satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

(164) The Panel finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on both the personal and public component.’

Decision of the Substantive Order Panel regarding sanction

6. Having considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the Substantive Order Panel considered what sanction it should impose. It took account of the risk of repetition. It concluded that to take no action or to issue a caution order would not be appropriate. It further concluded that it could not formulate workable conditions which adequately protect the public and which did not amount to suspension.
7. The Substantive Order Panel imposed a Suspension Order for 12 months. Its reasons for coming to these conclusions, were fully set out in its determination and include those set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.

‘(170) The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-

• The lack of any previous fitness to practise / regulatory concerns;
• The Registrant’s self-referral to the HCPC;
• The admissions made by the Registrant in relation to some of the comments made;
• The reflective piece of the Registrant which demonstrates The professional boundaries course undertaken by the Registrant;
• the fact the Registrant had worked as a registered Paramedic for in excess of 8 years prior to this incident and as a mentor; and
• The positive testimonials, albeit they are now outdated.
  
  

(171) The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-

• The planned nature of the conduct by ensuring he was working directly with Student A;
• The persistent and predatory nature of the sexualised behaviour across the day on 22 June 2019;
• The fact that this continued during and after the medical emergency suffered by Student A where the Registrant took advantage of a clinical situation for his own sexual gratification;
• Student A was vulnerable by virtue of her mentee status and there was a power imbalance;
• Student A was in a vulnerable and exploitable condition as a result of the medical emergency;
• The limited insight demonstrated by the Registrant into his behaviour and the impact of that on Student A and his colleagues;
• The limited remediation which does not address the attitudinal / sexually motivated behaviour;
• Emotional harm was caused to Student A; and
• There was a breach of a position of trust in the Registrant attempting to engage Student A in a future sexual relationship.

(172) The Panel finds that the allegations are very serious in nature, and the concerns are wide ranging. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy referred to ‘Serious Cases’ as being those involving abuse of professional position, inappropriate relationships (paragraphs 67-69), predatory behaviour (paragraphs 71 and 72), vulnerability (paragraphs 73-74) and sexual misconduct (paragraphs 76-77).

(173) The Panel finds the abuse of professional position and power imbalance to be two-fold, as the Registrant’s relationship with Student A was as a mentor and service provider/care giver. The Registrant has taken advantage of his position to operate in a predatory manner in his desire to engage in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Student A and his behaviour was targeted.

(174) The vulnerability of Student A was in her being new to the workplace as a student and mentee as well as when she became the Registrant’s patient in a medical emergency.

(175) The Panel noted paragraph 76 which states ‘Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession’, and paragraph 77 which states ‘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’.

(176) The Panel did not feel that this matter could be concluded with either mediation, no order or a caution. It did not consider these to be appropriate or adequate sanctions due to the serious and wide-ranging nature of the concerns raised, and the requirement to protect the public from harm and ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained. The Panel concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address the serious concerns.

(177) The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. Due to the lack of fully developed insight, insufficient evidence of remediation, and the Registrant’s lack of engagement with the regulatory process at the hearing, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be complied with. Nor did it consider that a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient to address the serious concerns identified or adequately protect the public as well as addressing the public interest concerns.

(178) Further the Panel considered paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving...abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct’.

(179) The Panel finds that had the areas of misconduct been solely relating to the Registrant’s clinical ability, conditions of practice may have addressed them adequately. However, due to the attitudinal and sexually motivated conduct the Panel concluded that there are no conditions they could impose to address the wide-ranging concerns that are workable, appropriate or proportionate. The allegations found proved are too serious to be concluded in this way.

(180) The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate, would not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of the Registrant remaining in practice and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator.

(181) The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where ‘the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics; the registrant has insight; the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’.

(182) While the Registrant has expressed some remorse and insight into his behaviour, due to his lack of engagement in the hearing the Panel is unable to assess the ability of the Registrant to remedy his failings at this time.

(183) The Panel went on to consider a striking off order which removes a Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising their profession.

(184) 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... abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct’.

(185) The Panel finds that the matters found proved are serious, persistent on 22 June 2019 only, and deliberate as the Registrant engineered the change of rota to ensure he was working directly with Student A.

(186) However, the Panel also considered paragraph 131 which 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. In particular where the registrant:

• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence;
• or is unwilling to resolve matters’.
  
  

(187) The Panel is unable to conclude that the Registrant lacks insight or that the conduct is likely to be repeated as there has been some engagement by the Registrant who has undertaken a course on professional boundaries. There is no suggestion that the Registrant is unwilling to resolve matters.

(188) The Panel considered a Striking Off Order but finds that such an order would be disproportionate in all the circumstances, and the public may lose the service of an experienced Paramedic. A Striking Off Order is a long-term sanction and the Panel finds that a Suspension Order provides a sufficient level of protection for the public and the wider public interest. In the Panel’s judgment, a Striking Off Order is not required to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process as a Suspension Order will be adequate to protect the public and the public interest will be satisfied by such an order. A Suspension Order is adequate to reflect the seriousness of the matters found proved.

(189) The Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight and remediation, the matters complained of arose on a single date, and considered it appropriate to afford the Registrant the opportunity to reflect and re-engage which will afford him an opportunity to consider a return to practice.

(190) The Panel concludes that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for a period of twelve months.’

Suggestions made by the Substantive Order Panel as to what might assist a future reviewing panel

8. In paragraph 191 of its determination, the Substantive Order Panel made suggestions as to what might assist a future reviewing panel. Those suggestions were in the following terms;

‘The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. A future reviewing Panel may be assisted by:

• The Registrant’s attendance and engagement;
  
  
• A reflective piece from the Registrant dealing with consent, abuse of professional position / abuse of trust, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct, inappropriate workplace relationships and the impact of sexualised behaviours on service users and colleagues;
  
  
• Evidence of CPD;
  
  
• Evidence of remediation which addresses the sexual motivation and sexualised behaviors’

The first review of the Substantive Order conducted on 19 May 2025

The Submissions made on behalf of the HCPC

9. Mr Micklewright on behalf of the HCPC took the Panel through the determination of the Substantive Order Panel and the relevant history. He referred in detail to a written statement received from the Registrant on 12 May 2025 [the content of which appears below and is referred to as the May 2025 statement]. Mr Micklewright also referred the Panel to documents which are comprised in the defence bundle that were available to the Substantive Order Panel.

10. Mr Micklewright was aware from the Registrant’s May 2025 statement, that the Registrant wished to dispose of this matter by way of a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA).

11. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant was still impaired on both the personal and the public components. He invited the Panel to make a Striking Off Order. In brief summary, Mr Micklewright’s submissions included the following;

• The allegations against the Registrant fell into two categories, clinical failures and sexual motivated conduct. Neither had been remedied.

• The persuasive burden of establishing that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired, fell on the Registrant. This the Registrant had failed to do.

• In substance nothing had changed since the hearing in April 2024 which undermined the finding of impairment on both the public and the personal components.

• There had been no substantial development in the Registrant’s insight and no evidence of remediation.

• Whilst the Registrant had engaged with this hearing and had produced the May 2025 Statement, there had otherwise been no significant compliance with the recommendations made in paragraph 191 of the determination of the Substantive Order Panel.

• There remains a significant risk that the Registrant would repeat his clinical failings and his sexually motivated misconduct.

• In this case an outcome based on a VRA was not available to the Panel.

• There was no realistic prospect that the Registrant would successfully address the failings found proved by the Substantive Order Panel. In these circumstances the Panel should make an order to strike the Registrant from the Register.

12. In answer to the submission [made by the Registrant at the conclusion of the hearing, that the entirety of the hearing should be in private and that the Allegation should be redacted from the publicly available version of the determination] Mr Micklewright submitted that this was a public hearing and save for the order for partial privacy, made at the start of the hearing, the determination should be a full record of the proceedings.

Submissions by the Registrant

13. For the purposes of this hearing the Registrant has submitted a written statement [the May 2025 Statement]. The Panel also had sight of the Registrant’s defence bundle which was put before the previous panel. The May 2025 statement is set out below:

‘STATEMENT OF MR JAMES BIRDSEYE FOR SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW HEARING THURSDAY 19th MAY 2025 (FTP.71845)

1. I am providing this written statement as my submission in my Review Hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee, to be held on 19th May 2025.
   
   
2. I understand that the purpose of the hearing is to decide what, if any, further action is to be taken with regards to my suspension from the register as a practicing Paramedic, such suspension having been effective since 22 April 2024.
   
   
3. It is my submission that I would respectfully ask that the panel consider my voluntary removal from the register with immediate effect.
   
   
4. I am deeply regretful of the actions that lead to my suspension and very sorry for any harm or distress I have caused to Student A as a result of my conduct. It was never my intention to cause Student A any discomfort or harm and I am saddened that I have done so and it is something I reflect upon frequently.
   
   
5. I can accept that in the events leading up to the incident with Student A, I displayed an overfamiliarity with them that crossed the boundaries of a normal professional relationship and I acted in a manner than I am not proud of. I did not give enough thought to the impact that my behaviour could have on Student A who was in a vulnerable state. While I do not agree to having maliciously used this vulnerable state to pursue a sexual relationship with them, I do concede that my behaviour fell drastically short not only of what the profession expected of me but what I should have expected of myself nor only as a practicing paramedic but as a person, a mentor and a father of teenage children.
   
   
6. I have had time to reflect on the events with Student A and I acknowledge the impact these must have had on them not only as someone who put me in a position of trust, but also as a person who was going through a medical emergency and was, as a result, vulnerable and who had no choice but to put her trust in me personally and clinically. And on reflection I do acknowledge that my clinical ability and my professional conduct was impaired on that day. This is not an admission I am proud of but it is an admission I have taken great pains to learn from.
   
   
7. I have sought to learn from this incident by undertaking a course on maintaining professional boundaries. I have also taken my personal reflections with me and I am now very mindful of the interactions I have with my colleagues, regardless of the relationship of power between us, and I strive at all times to maintain respectful professional boundaries.
   
   
8. [redacted] However, I want to reiterate that this does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions that fell below the expected standards.

9. During my substantive hearing, the panel faced the challenge of making decisions without my version of events and the extensive expert witness report from Professor Newton, a highly respected Paramedic. Due to my [redacted] health at the time, I was absent, and the panel decided that Professor Newton's evidence would not be under oath and therefore not fully cross-examined. I understand the difficulty this posed, but I respectfully ask the panel to consider this decision. I am aware that the panel cannot assess this evidence in the current hearing
   
   
10. My reflection has helped me to better understand the influence that can be held in relationships where there is a power imbalance and I am careful to identify situations where this exists and be very careful with my interactions within them – though I must stress that I am mindful across the board regardless of the nature of power balance between myself and my colleagues. I can acknowledge and accept that in the past I have been overfamiliar – and this is something I have sought and worked hard to address.
    
    
11. In terms of my clinical behaviour, I can accept that my clinical assessment of Student A fell short of the standards expected of a registered paramedic. Having worked with Student A all day, I did not adequately alter my view of Student A from colleague to patient and I carried that overfamiliarity over with me which meant that Student A did not benefit from the full clinical assessment that they should have received. For that, I am deeply sorry and this is not a mistake I would make again, (notwithstanding the information contained in the rest of my statement regarding my future career). I can see the impact that overfamiliarity and complacency can have on one’s ability to perform their job properly and again this is a lesson I have taken with me from this incident.
    
    
12. Since (indeed before) the date of my suspension, I have not practiced as a Paramedic nor as a healthcare professional in any professional capacity and indeed it is not my intention to return to the healthcare profession in any way. My career has since developed and I now work in a field which is entirely unrelated to my work under the HCPC nor is there a risk that my career will take a path that brings me back under the HCPC’s purview.
    
    
13. I acknowledge the HCPC’s policy on voluntary removal with the criteria to be satisfied and I believe I can address these as follows: (a) Whilst I do not admit in full the allegations made against me, I will acknowledge that my conduct at the time could perhaps have been construed as unprofessional and I acknowledge that I fell short of the standards expected of me as a practicing paramedic in relation to Student A; and
    (b) I believe that there is no detriment to the HCPC’s requirement to maintain a level of public protection.
    
    
14. During the course of my suspension, I have not taken any steps to maintain continuing competence – I am no longer a practicing paramedic, and I do not intend to become one again in the future.
    
    
15. With this in mind, I would like to reiterate that it is my sole wish to now move forward with my life and with my career and I would therefore again respectfully ask that the panel today consider my voluntary removal from the HCPC register with immediate effect.
    
    
16. I am deeply, deeply sorry for the effect that my behaviour had on Student A. I am mortified that my behaviour has led to someone feeling discomfort and harm. This incident has provided me with an opportunity to reflect on my behaviour and correct the issues encountered and I can assure the panel that it is not a repeated pattern of behaviour, nor will it become one. I was wrong, I have learned a difficult lesson, and it is one I will carry with me into the future.’

Oral submissions made by the Registrant

14. The Registrant made oral submissions to the Panel. In brief summary he said following;

• That he deeply regretted his conduct toward Student A and wished to apologise.

• That the events had a very serious impact on his health and family.

• He was now seeking to rebuild his life.

• [redacted]

• As a result of what had appeared on the HCPC website he had been the subject of much abuse.

• The regulatory process had taken far too long.

• He had no intention of again practising as a Paramedic. He wanted his name to be removed from the Register. This would enable him to put the events behind him and start a new life.

• In order to [redacted] and to mitigate the risk of abuse, he wished the hearing to be in private and that no record of his name or the Allegation to appear on the HCPC website.

The decisions of the Panel made on 19 May 2025

15. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the Practice Note published by the HCPTS in March 2018 and entitled “Disposal of cases by Consent”, “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and the “HCPC’s Sanctions Policy”.

16. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.
17. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of the Panel on Impairment

18. Having taken account of the submissions made by Mr Micklewright, the May 2025 Statement of the Registrant and the Registrant’s oral submissions, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, on both the personal and on the public components. Its reasons are essentially the same as those given by the Substantive Order Panel. These are set out above.
19. The Panel acknowledges that the Registrant has attended this hearing and has produced a written statement. Otherwise, the Registrant has not complied with the suggestions made in paragraph 191 of the determination of the Substantive Order Panel which included a reflective piece, “dealing with consent, abuse of professional position / abuse of trust, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct, inappropriate workplace relationships and the impact of sexualised behaviours on service users and colleagues”. While there were some references to abuse of professional position and trust there was a marked absence of everything else. Further there was no evidence of “remediation which addresses the sexual motivation and sexualised behaviours” and no new meaningful CPD. The panel is aware that the registrant undertook a course on professional boundaries, however, this was in 2020. In addition to the suggestion from the previous panel, the current Panel were of the view that the Registrant’s insight was fundamentally poor and superficial for the most part. In his written statement he used ‘overfamiliarity’ to address his past failings and language such as “my conduct at the time could perhaps have been construed as unprofessional”. The panel believed this language trivialised his serious misconduct. With regards to his oral statement, the Panel were of the view that this was heavily self-focused on the impact the process had on him rather than Student A, his colleagues, his profession and the wider public. The Registrant has had opportunities to provide meaningful insight and remediation, however, this has not happened. Having considered the material available to it, in particular the Registrant’s May 2025 Statement and his oral submissions, the Panel concluded that there was very little evidence of enhanced insight and or of remediation. In these circumstances the risk of repetition remains, both as to clinical failings and as to sexually motivated misconduct. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden of establishing that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired.
20. The Panel also concludes that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be gravely undermined if the Panel was to determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not now impaired and if the Registrant was permitted to return to unrestricted practice. While the Panel note that the Registrant does not wish to return to practice, this may change in the future and not restricting him, given the seriousness of the Allegation found proven, would undermine public confidence in the profession and the HCPC. The Panel, therefore, determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public components.

Decision of the Panel on Sanction

21. In considering the appropriate order the Panel had regard to the HCPTS’ Sanctions Policy updated in March 2019, to the submissions of Mr Micklewright, to the May 2025 Statement of the Registrant, to his oral submissions and to the advice of the Legal Assessor.
22. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive and that it must consider the risk of repetition and public confidence in the profession and its regulator.
23. The Panel has considered the sanctions available in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would be wholly inappropriate.
24. The Panel gave consideration to the possibility of formulating a Conditions of Practice Order. However, it concluded that it could not formulate appropriate conditions as his behaviour was attitudinal in parts and the seriousness of it would not protect the public or address the public interest. Moreover, given that the Registrant did not intend to practise as a Paramedic, a Conditions of Practice Order was not practicable. It agreed with the determination of the Substantive Order Panel as set out in paragraphs 177 to 180 of its determination.
25. The Panel next considered a continuation of the Suspension Order. The Panel determined that while this would secure public protection for another 12 months, a continuation of the Suspension Order is not appropriate. The Registrant has not adequately addressed his clinical failings or his misconduct by way of any meaningful insight or remediation. In addition, the Registrant does not wish to practise again as a Paramedic. Therefore, in all the circumstances, given the opportunities the Registrant has had to address his failings meaningfully and thoroughly, there is no realistic prospect of the relevant considerations changing. There is no merit in keeping this case in the review cycle. In all the circumstances, the appropriate order to make in order to protect the public and to address the public interest, is to strike the Registrant’s name for the Register.
26. The Panel considered the Registrant’s application that this should be a wholly private hearing and that its determination should not record the name of the Registrant or the Allegation. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It considered the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private”, the Panel concluded that it had received no compelling evidence that publication of the matters identified by the Registrant would do very serious damage to the Registrant [redacted] or that the proposed restrictions were otherwise necessary to protect his private life. In these circumstances the Panel determined that except for the direction previously made for partial privacy, this is a public hearing.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr James Birdseye from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

The Order imposed will apply from the 23 May 2025.

History of Hearings for James Birdseye