Robbie Dobson

Preliminary Matters

Privacy application

1. Ms Collins, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for parts of the hearing to be held in private to protect the Registrant’s health and private life. She referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private. Ms Collins submitted that parts of the evidence the Panel was likely to hear fell into the ‘private life’ exception, making it appropriate for the Panel to hear parts of the case in private. The Registrant supported the application.

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and was aware that generally, hearings are held in public, in accordance with principle of open justice. However, the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules give two broad exceptions to this principle; matters may be heard in private where to do so is in the interests of justice or is to protect the privacy of a party, witness or other person. The Panel therefore has a discretion to conduct all or parts of the proceedings in private.

3. The Panel noted that the allegations in part go to matters relating to the Registrant’s private life, and considered that such matters should be heard in public. It was in the public interest for such matters to be dealt with at a public hearing. However, the Registrant’s health was a matter that was separate and should not, in fairness to him, enter the public domain. The Registrant was entitled to expect that matters pertaining to his health should remain private. The Panel therefore granted the application in so far as it related to the Registrant’s health. The Registrant’s right to privacy around his health outweighed the public interest in those matters being heard in public.

Adjournment application

4. The Registrant applied for an adjournment citing his health. [redacted] he received the hearing bundle, which had been sent to his mother’s address, as he had not updated his address with the HCPC. He had not seen the Notice of Hearing or documents sent by email as the email address held by the HCPC is one he rarely uses.

5. The Registrant submitted that he would not have a fair hearing if he had to represent himself in his current state of health. He had been unable to obtain legal advice since becoming aware of the hearing date due to his health. He had contacted Stevenson’s Solicitors via their online chat, but had not heard back. He had not had previous legal advice due to the cost.

6. The Registrant had emailed Blake Morgan Solicitors the previous week, but had been told the request would be dealt with at the hearing. He did not have any medical evidence, but could obtain a letter, which he anticipated would take 24-48 hours.

7. Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC opposed the application. She referred to the Notice of Hearing having been sent on 16 September 2024 and that the bundle, in addition to having been sent by email, had been posted because Blake Morgan had not heard from the Registrant since November 2023. She referred the Panel to the Practice Note on Postponements and Adjournments, which had also been sent to the Registrant following his requests for an adjournment last week. That puts an obligation on a party requesting an adjournment to act expeditiously and outlines the factors decision makers should take into account based on the case of CPS v Picton (2006) EWHC 1108. She submitted that the Registrant has had sufficient time to secure legal advice.

8. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and was aware that it was exercising its discretion, taking into account the factors set out in CPS v Picton, in determining whether it was fair to the Registrant to proceed with the hearing today.

9. The Panel noted that the Registrant first requested an adjournment on 3 December 2024, having become aware of the hearing date on or around 27 November 2024. It noted that the Practice Note referred to requests made within 5 working days to be exceptional, and considered that there were no exceptional circumstances here; the Registrant could have acted more quickly. He had been properly served with notice of the hearing, and bore responsibility for not keeping his contact details up to date.

10. The Panel had sight of the Registrant’s requests made by email. On 3 December 2024 he had asked for an ‘adjustment’ to the hearing, as the date was too soon for him to ‘review, consider and take legal advice’. A reply was sent on 4 December 2024, attaching the relevant Practice Note and informing the Registrant that due to the lateness of the request, an application would need to be made at the hearing. The Registrant replied, saying he hoped the request would not be a problem, given that it had taken over four years to get to this point. The Panel noted that at no time did he mention his health.

11. The Panel had no evidence to support what the Registrant had said about the impact of his health on his ability to represent himself at the hearing, despite the Registrant having been made aware that this would be required, because the need for evidence is referenced in the Practice Note. The Panel went through the relevant factors in CPS v Picton. It noted that there is a need to deal with the matter expeditiously given that it dates back to alleged events in 2019. There was a clear public interest in bringing the matter to a resolution. As to the Registrant’s ability to fully present his case, the Panel acknowledged that there will be some unfairness, as he has not obtained legal advice and appears not to have prepared for the hearing, [redacted]. However, the lack of preparation was something that had been in the Registrant’s control; he had been sent the documentation prior to the preliminary hearing in April 2024, and again at the beginning of November 2024. There was no good reason for not having sought legal advice before today. As to his health, there was no evidence to substantiate the Registrant’s submission that he was unfit to represent himself [redacted].

12. The Panel considered that if it were to grant an adjournment, the likelihood was that the Registrant would be in the same position at the date of a future hearing, [redacted].The Panel therefore determined that whilst there will be some disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding [redacted] this was not disproportionate. It was in his interests, as well the interests of the HCPC and wider public interest, that the matter be dealt with this week as scheduled. [redacted]. The Panel and Legal Assessor would support the Registrant with the hearing process and offer breaks or make any other reasonable adjustments sought, so that the Registrant can fully participate. The application was refused.

Application to Amend the Allegation

13. Ms Collins made an application to amend the Allegation. The Registrant and Panel had received an email on the morning of the first day of the hearing notifying them of this application. The first amendment was to the dates in particular 1. This, Ms Collins submitted, had been made to cover the period from the start of the Registrant’s employment at HMP Altcourse and both payments made to the father of Service User 1.

14. The second proposed amendment was to add a new particular 3, to expressly allege that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual or sexually motivated. Ms Collins submitted that this was implicit in the factual particulars, but should, in addition, be put as a separate particular to make the HCPC’s case clear. Ms Collins submitted that the HCPC’s case had not changed by the addition of this particular and that the Registrant had raised no objection when it was discussed with him. She submitted that there was no prejudice to the Registrant.

15. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and was aware that it had to balance fairness to the Registrant with the HCPC’s overarching duty of public protection. It was aware that it had a role in ensuring that there was no undercharging in accordance with R (Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals) v General Medical Council and Rajeshwar [2005] EWHC 2973 (Admin).

16. The Panel considered that the application in so far as it related to the dates was to correct a slip and properly reflect the evidence. In the Panel’s view there was no disadvantage to the Registrant, notwithstanding the lack of notice.

17. As to the addition of particular 3, the Panel considered that there was some unfairness to the Registrant in that he had only been notified of this change on the first day of the hearing. However, the Panel balanced his interests with the HCPC’s duty to protect the public, and bore in mind its duty to ensure that the full gravity of the alleged conduct is reflected in the Allegation, so that its decision will adequately protect the public. The Panel determined that overall, given the nature of the factual particulars, the case against the Registrant was not made more serious, but that the additional particular clarified the HCPC’s case. The Panel determined, in line with its duty to ensure that the case brought reflected the gravity of the alleged conduct, the balance fell on the side of permitting this amendment. The HCPC’s application to amend was granted in respect of both proposed amendments.

Hearsay Application

18. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the decision made at the preliminary hearing on 9 April 2024 in respect of hearsay evidence. That panel determined that the statement of JM did not contain hearsay. Ms Collins submitted that this conclusion had been incorrect with reference to paragraph 6, where JM set out what Service User 2 had told her about what happened in the consultation room with the Registrant. Ms Collins submitted that as JM did not witness the events that were reported by Service User 2, her evidence in this respect was hearsay. Ms Collins submitted that paragraph 6 should therefore be admitted as hearsay. She outlined attempts made to engage Service User 2. Whilst this was, she submitted, the sole and decisive evidence in relation to particulars 2b and 2c, it was nevertheless fair to admit it.

19. The Panel had regard to the Legal Assessor’s advice, which referenced the Civil Evidence Act 1995, the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules and the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin). It was aware that at this stage it was being asked to determine whether to admit the evidence; weight was a separate consideration. The Panel needed to be satisfied that the evidence was relevant to the matters it must determine, and that it would be fair to the Registrant to admit it. The Panel was aware that particular care needs to be taken where the evidence is sole and decisive, and must be satisfied that there is some means of testing its reliability.

20. The Panel was satisfied that paragraph 6 of JM’s statement is hearsay for the reasons outlined by Ms Collins. It then noted the attempts made to secure the attendance of Service User 2, and considered that all reasonable attempts had been made. The evidence was directly relevant to particular 2. As to fairness, bearing in mind that the Registrant disputes particular 2c, and will not be able to cross examine Service User 2, the Panel determined that the reliability of this evidence can be tested with reference to the transcript of Service User 2’s Achieving Best Evidence interview. In that regard, paragraph 6 of JM’s statement was not the sole and decisive evidence. There was additional corroborating evidence such as the statement given to the police by the mother of Service User 2.

21. The Panel concluded that there will be some unfairness to the Registrant if paragraph 6 of JM’s statement is admitted in evidence, but that had to be balanced against fairness to the HCPC which included the public interest in the HCPC being able to effectively carry out its regulatory function. The Panel determined, in view of the corroborating evidence contained in the bundle, combined with the fact that it had not been possible to secure the attendance of Service User 2 and the fact that the Panel would reflect the fact that this is hearsay evidence in the weight attributed to it in due course, it was fair to admit it.

Second application to amend

22. At the beginning of the third day of the hearing, Ms Collins made a further application to amend. This was an addition to particular 2c, adding “and/or testicles”, so that it is alleged that the Registrant touched Service User 2’s penis and/or testicles without having a medical reason to do so. Ms Collins submitted that this amendment was to more accurately reflect the evidence, and arguably, touching of the penis was more serious, hence the amendment did not increase the seriousness of the case against the Registrant.

23. The Registrant did not oppose the amendment.

24. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the advice previously given, with specific reference to Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2107] EWCA Civ 319, which makes clear that it is open to a committee to amend an allegation even at the stage the facts have been proved.

25. The Panel considered that this application should have been brought initially and had some concerns about the piecemeal approach to amendments. On the other hand, it considered that the amendment did more accurately reflect the evidence and did not change the nature or seriousness of the allegation faced by the Registrant. The amendment would not make the allegation easier to prove, and as such, determined that it was fair to allow the amendment.

Application by the Registrant to admit the convictions of Service User 2

26. Prior to the Registrant giving evidence, he indicated that he wished to bring evidence in relation to Service User 2’s bad character, namely, that Service User 2 has convictions for dishonesty. He said that this had been disclosed to his solicitor when the criminal investigation was taking place. It was agreed by Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC that such evidence was relevant. The Panel considered that in fairness, this evidence, if it could be obtained, was relevant and should be admitted.

27. The Registrant obtained, via the solicitor who had acted for him in the criminal matter, a Police National Computer print-out detailing Service User 2’s convictions. This stated on the front page: “This printout is produced for the use of prosecutors only and must not be disclosed to any other party. Data Protection Legislation: These personal data are provided for the agreed specified purpose(s). Keep the data secure and protect them against loss or unauthorised access.”

28. The Panel, having heard submissions from the parties, sought legal advice on whether this evidence could be used in these proceedings.

29. The Legal Assessor advised that criminal offence data can only be processed (used including shared) if a lawful purpose is established under Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a condition for processing under schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is met. Lawful purposes under Article 6 include “d) Processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person”. She advised that this lawful purpose criterion is met. As to schedule 1, paragraph 33 relates to use in connection with legal proceedings and provides a condition for processing as this includes that processing “c) is otherwise necessary for the purpose of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights”. She advised that together these give a lawful basis for the Registrant to use the PNC conviction data relating to Service User 2.

30. The Panel determined that as the PNC record has been obtained by the Registrant, he has a lawful basis, as outlined by the Legal Assessor, to use it to defend himself in these proceedings. The Panel considered that in order to properly defend himself against particular 2c, which is an extremely serious allegation, the Registrant should, in fairness, be permitted to bring evidence as to Service User 2’s convictions. This was particularly pertinent as Service User 2 has not attended, so his evidence as recorded at the ABE interview and in his conversation with JM, could not be tested under cross-examination. Service User 2’s credibility is a highly relevant issue.

Background

31. The Registrant is a Paramedic registered with the HCPC.

32. From 11 September 2019 to 28 February 2020 the Registrant was employed at HMP Altcourse as a medical officer. Service User 1 was an inmate at HMP Altcourse between 14 May 2019 and 6 February 2020, following which he was transferred to HMP Stafford.

33. It is alleged that during his time at the prison, and subsequently, the Registrant had a consensual sexual relationship with Service User 1.

34. The Registrant was later employed as a Custody Healthcare Professional by CRG Medical Service ('CRG'), working in custody suites for Merseyside Police from 6 June 2020 until his employment was terminated on 28 August 2020. It is alleged that on 15 August 2020 he sexually assaulted a detainee, Service User 2, whilst in a consultation room in the custody suite. The consultation room is not covered by CCTV.

35. On 12 September 2020 Service User 2 attended Belle Vale Police Station and disclosed to a member of staff, JM, that while he had been in custody on 15 August 2020 the Registrant had sexually assaulted him, [redacted] and left details of his Snapchat details within Service User 2’s belongings.

36. The Registrant was arrested on 14 September 2020. Following the arrest the police searched his house and found two letters which appeared to show a relationship with Service User 1. The Registrant was interviewed the same day and answered “no comment” to all the questions asked.

37. On 14 October 2020 Service User 2 gave an Achieving Best Evidence (‘ABE’) interview to the police.

38. On 26 October 2020 the police spoke with Service User 1, who allegedly confirmed that sexual acts had taken place, but not sexual intercourse with the Registrant.

39. On 4 November 2020 Service User 1 advised the police that he did not wish to provide a witness statement as the relationship between him and the Registrant was consensual. The Registrant was interviewed for a second time by the police on 4 November 2020. According to the record of the interview the Registrant admitted to knowing Service User 1 during his time at HMP Altcourse, and that they kept in touch when Service User 1 was transferred away from the prison. He admitted during this interview that he twice paid money into Service User 1’s father’s account to be sent on to Service User 1 but the Registrant denied ever engaging in sexual contact with Service User 1. In addition, he accepted that the letters found in his home were correspondence between him and Service User 1.

40. In this second interview, it was put to the Registrant that he had sexually assaulted Service User 2, which he denied. [redacted] [The Registrant] stated that Service User 2 was upset and told him that he had been sexually abused by his step-father. The Registrant admitted to putting a post-it note with his Snapchat details in Service User 2’s property.

41. On 6 November 2020 the police advised the HCPC that they were investigating the concerns relating to Service User 1 and Service User 2.

42. On 12 February 2021 the Registrant was charged with the sexual assault of Service User 2. The Registrant pleaded not guilty and a trial was listed for 4 July 2022.

43. The CPS informed the HCPC that no further action would be taken in relation to the Registrant’s relationship with Service User 1 due to insufficient evidence, as Service User 1 did not support the prosecution.

44. In August 2021 the HCPC asked Merseyside Police to contact Service User 1 to ask whether he would engage in an HCPC investigation. The HCPC provided a letter dated 10 November 2021 to be passed to Service User 1. On 24 December 2021 Service User 1’s father replied to Merseyside Police and stated that Service User 1 did not wish to engage in any part of the investigation.

45. On 13 January 2022 Service User 2 failed to attend a Section 28 hearing to pre-record his cross-examination and the case was subsequently discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service.

46. The matter was considered by an Investigating Committee Panel (‘ICP’) on 27 October 2022. The ICP determined that there was a case to answer and referred the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

47. On 9 April 2024 a preliminary hearing was held where it was decided that it was fair to admit hearsay evidence contained in the statement of MT, and that exhibits provided by all the witnesses, which contained hearsay, were to be admitted.

Submissions

48. Ms Collins referred the Panel, via written submissions, to the evidence in the bundle that the HCPC says proves each of the particulars on the balance of probabilities.

49. The Registrant provided written submissions summarising his evidence, supported by that of EM, and the custody record of Service User 2. He referred to relevant inconsistencies in some of the evidence before the Panel.

Evidence

50. The Panel heard evidence from the following witnesses:

• Detective Sergeant MT, Merseyside Police;

• AQ, Solicitor for the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police;

• JM, Detention Officer for Merseyside Police;

• The Registrant;

• EM, Registered Nurse who worked with the Registrant at HMP Altcourse.

• The Panel also received character references from DB, Personal License Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor, and MG, friend.

The pertinent parts of their evidence are summarised in relation to the particulars of the Allegation to which it relates below.

Legal Advice

51. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice:

• The burden of proof is on the HCPC and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The more serious the allegation, the less likely it is to have occurred and the more cogent the evidence required to establish its occurrence on the balance of probabilities – Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563;

• Unchallenged documentary evidence is more reliable than witness’ recollection, and demeanour is not a reliable indicator of credibility - Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974;

• The weight to attach to hearsay evidence is a matter for the Panel;

• Common sense inferences drawn from the evidence are permissible, but the panel should not make assumptions or speculate;

• The Registrant’s good character is relevant to his credibility and his propensity to have acted as alleged - Wisson v HPC [2013] EWHC 1036 (Admin);

• The nature of Service User 2’s convictions is relevant to his credibility;

• Sexual motivation means conduct in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship and is to be proved by inference from the surrounding evidence - Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin);

• ‘Sexual’ or ‘sexually motivated’ can be inferred from (i) the touching was of the sexual organs; (ii) the absence of a clinical justification; and (iii) the absence of any other plausible reasoning for the touching - General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) and Haris v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 763.

Decision on Facts

1. On or between 11 September 2019 and 26 October 2020 you:

a) Twice paid £20 to Service User 1’s father’s bank account to enable telephone communication - PROVED

52. MT gave evidence that after a complaint of sexual assault was made against the Registrant she arrested him on 14 September 2020. She interviewed him the same day, and the Registrant answered “no comment” in response to all the questions. MT conducted a second interview with the Registrant on 4 November 2020, during which he confirmed that he had met Service User 1 when he worked at HMP Altcourse, and they kept in touch when Service User 1 was transferred to HMP Stafford. The Registrant confirmed that he conversed with Service User 1 by telephone after the move to Stafford.

53. MT’s evidence was that the Registrant had admitted in the second interview that he had twice paid money into Service User 1’s father’s account to be sent on to Service User 1, because he felt sorry for Service User 1.

54. MT produced a statement from Service User 1’s father dated 26 October 2020. He stated that Service User 1 had informed him (the father) that the Registrant had offered to put £20 into Service User 1’s prison account every month to cover the cost of telephone calls. It had been arranged that the money would be paid into Service User 1’s father’s account who would then pay it into Service User 1’s prison account. In his statement, Service User 1’s father said two such payments had been made.

55. MT produced text messages exchanged between the Registrant and Service User 1's father. On both 13 August 2020 and 8 September 2020 the Registrant texted to say he had sent £20. On both occasions, Service User 1’s father confirmed receipt.

56. The Registrant in his evidence to the Panel admitted having made two payments of £20 to the father of Service User 1. He had not admitted this at the outset due to the dates in the stem of the Allegation, which covered the period he worked at HMP Altcourse. The Registrant pointed out that both payments had been made after his professional involvement with Service User 1 had ended.

57. The Panel found this particular proved. It was satisfied given the Registrant’s evidence and the text messages that on two occasions, namely 13 August and 8 September 2020, the Registrant transferred £20 to the father of Service User 1 to enable telephone communication. The Panel understood why the Registrant had been unsure about admitting this at the outset, and given that the transfers were made some six months after the Registrant had worked with Service User 1, this will be considered further in the Panel’s deliberations on misconduct.

b) Engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with Service User 1 – NOT PROVED

58. MT’s evidence was that after the Registrant’s arrest on 14 September 2020 his property was searched. Two letters were found which were believed to have been exchanged between the Registrant and an inmate at HMP Altcourse.

59. MT produced her police statement dated 16 November 2020, in which she set out that she had spoken to Service User 1 by phone on 26 October 2020. Service User 1 reportedly said that he had been involved in a sexual relationship with the Registrant at HMP Altcourse. He would make excuses to go to the triage room, and consensual sexual acts occurred. There had been a further conversation on 4 October during which Service User 1 had declined to give a formal statement because everything between him and the Registrant had been consensual.

60. On 4 November 2020 MT interviewed the Registrant. He accepted that the letters found at this address were correspondence between himself and Service User 1.

61. During the interview on 4 November 2020 the Registrant had denied a sexual relationship with Service User 1 saying there was just a friendship between them.

62. MT produced a summary of the calls between the Registrant and Service User 1 between 27 August and 14 September 2020. 11 calls took place and the conversations were around what they had both been doing, their plans and how they intended spending time together when Service User 1 was released from prison. The Registrant referred to Service User 1 as “boo” on most calls. MT said this is a slang term for boyfriend. MT had identified aspects of the calls which the HCPC relied on as evidence of a sexual relationship. These included:

• In a call on 29 August 2020 there was reference to massages and Service User 1 referred to a knee injury and said that it was the injury he used to pretend he had in order to see the Registrant. In reply the Registrant said, “calls are recorded remember, shut your mouth”.

• On 31 August 2020 when discussing the Registrant’s upcoming visit to see Service User 1 at HMP Stafford, the Registrant said, “can we not touch each other, can I not hold your hand”. The Registrant also commented, “there is nothing illegal with it now, well there was nothing illegal about it in the first place, nothing ever happened, I have just kept in contact with you and developed feelings like you more” [sic].

• On 6 September 2020 Service User 1 and the Registrant spoke about their future together. The Registrant spoke about paying money in to Service User 1’s account and said that he did not like Service User 1’s moustache, stating “that won’t be coming near my orifice”.

• On 12 September 2020 the Registrant, in reply to Service User 1 saying he enjoyed fishing and had a 10 meter pole, stated “your pole isn’t even 10cm so don’t get cocky”.

63. The Registrant strongly refuted any sexual relationship with Service User

1. He acknowledged that a friendship developed during the time that he worked at HMP Altcourse. However, he was adamant that he had never been alone with Service User 1 in the medical room or anywhere else. His evidence was that there would always have been another person present, usually a prison officer, as a chaperone.

64. EM gave evidence and stated that she met the Registrant when working at HMP Altcourse. She confirmed that healthcare staff are never alone with prisoners; there would always be a member of prison staff or another healthcare professional present. This was prison policy. Further, she said that she would have raised concerns about the Registrant had she been of the view that he had crossed professional boundaries when working at HMP Altcourse.

65. Under cross examination the Registrant maintained his denial of any sexual relationship. When asked about the evidence of MT, he questioned whether her statement was an accurate reflection of what Service User 1 had said, on the basis that her reports of comments made in the phone conversations had been taken out of context and as such, their meaning distorted. He made the point that he has been disadvantaged at this hearing because Service User 1 is not here to be questioned. The Registrant said that he had not come into contact with Service User 1 many times whilst he had been at HMP Altcourse, and had never examined him alone.

66. The comments made in the calls, as reported by MT were put to the Registrant. He denied that massages had been referred to in a conversation and asked where the quote was, noting that other comments have been directly quoted. As to Service User 1 referring to the injury he pretended to have, the Registrant was unaware of Service User 1 having made excuses to see him. When it was put to the Registrant that he told Service User 1 to shut his mouth, when referring to having pretended to have an injury, the Registrant asked in reply what he would gain out of sexual relations if there was always someone else present. With regard to the reference to Service User 1’s "pole" not being 10cm, the Registrant said that Service User 1 used to brag about the size of his penis, and the comment was made as a joke in that context. He denied having seen or touched it.

67. Moving to the letters, the Registrant denied that "Boo" is slang for boyfriend. He explained that because he’s camp lots of the prisoners used to call him boo, they’d say “here’s our Boo”. He denied that the letter was written to him as a boyfriend, but as a friend.

68. The Registrant accepted he had visited Service User 1 in Stafford prison. He was asked about the call on 31 August 2020, which preceded that visit, where MT had reported that he had commented “can we not touch each other, can we not hold hands”. The Registrant said that a full transcript of the call should have been provided to put the comment in context. It was made in the context of Stafford prison not being as open with regard to sexuality. The Registrant said, in that context, he made a joke saying “so can I not hold your hand then”. As to the comment that there was nothing illegal, the Registrant explained that by this point feelings had developed. But nothing ever happened that was illegal.

69. The Panel began by considering the document that had been produced summarising the calls. It was unable to ascertain whether MT had herself listened to the call and was unable to find anything within her evidence to confirm that. The Panel was also unaware of whether the calls had been listened to with a view to establishing evidence of a sexual relationship, and hence potentially biased, or whether the notes were a balanced summary. The Panel was cognisant of the Registrant’s concerns that comments had been taken out of context and a different interpretation having been put forward by the HCPC. In view of these matters, and the Registrant’s explanations provided in his evidence, the Panel did not find that these calls evidenced a sexual relationship.

70. The Panel then considered the letters from Service User 1. It found these to be evidence of Service User 1 being on some level attracted to the Registrant, but they did not provide evidence of reciprocation.

71. The Panel was hampered to an extent by the lack of direct evidence from Service User 1. Not only had he refused to attend this hearing, but had also refused to give a formal statement to the police. The Panel noted that in the telephone conversation with MT Service User 1 had made reference to sexual acts, but no detail was given, and Service User 1’s willingness to co-operate had been contingent on assistance with a move from HMP Stafford. Further, the Panel noted that Service User 1’s father, whose advice he took in relation to giving a police statement, was unaware of any sexual relationship. The Panel could give very limited weight to what Service User 1 had said in these circumstances. In so far as Service User 1’s evidence directly contradicted that of the Registrant and EM about being alone with the Registrant in the triage room, the Panel accepted the evidence of the Registrant and EM. The Panel found both these witnesses credible. It found the Registrant credible because his account of events has been consistent from his interview on 4 November 2020 and in his evidence to the Panel, and further, because his explanations were logical. EM was a credible witness because her evidence remained consistent under cross-examination and because she is a registered professional who, in the Panel’s view understood the implications of giving untrue or misleading evidence.

72. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence, supported by that of EM, and found that no sexual contact had taken place in the triage room at HMP Altcourse. With regard to other indicators of a relationship, the Panel gave little weight to the police statement of Prison Officer KR, as this was hearsay and because the Registrant had given credible evidence as to his reasons for twice visiting the workshop at the prison. The Panel did not find the name ‘Boo’ meant boyfriend and accepted the Registrant’s explanation.

73. In conclusion, the Panel had no reliable evidence of sexual acts having taken place. Whilst some of the evidence such as comments made in calls could, on one interpretation, be indicative of a sexual relationship, the HCPC had not, in view of the selective nature of this evidence, lack of context and counter-evidence given by the Registrant, satisfied the Panel, on the balance of probabilities, that there had been a sexual relationship between Service User 1 and the Registrant.

2. On or around 15 August 2020 you:

a) Gave your snapchat details to Service User 2 – PROVED ON ADMISSION

b) Disclosed personal information to Service User 2 – PROVED ON ADMISSION

c) Touched Service User 2’s penis and/or testicles without having a medical reason to do so – NOT PROVED

74. JM gave evidence that on 12 September 2020 when Service User 2 attended the police station to answer bail in relation to an offence he had been arrested for on 15 August 2020. She informed Service User 2 that he was released under investigation. JM’s evidence was that Service User 2 then asked to speak to her about something, and disclosed that whilst he had been in custody on 15 August he had been “touched” by a doctor. Service User 2 disclosed to the doctor that he had been abused as a child, and the doctor said “did you enjoy it in your mouth” before touching his private parts.

75. JM described Service user 2 as quite emotional when he was speaking. Her evidence was that his speech was tremored and he looked quite timid about what he was saying. He took pauses to gather his emotions.

76. Service User 2 had an ABE interview with MT on 14 October 2020, the transcript of which was produced by AQ. When asked about what happened he stated:

“I went in there and he touched me, indecency and I felt like because, cos he was the doctor, erm I’d had seen it and also, he was coming out with some wrong stuff. But he did touch me indecency… But I was in one of those police dressing gowns. So, next minute he’s like erm, to be honest with you, you might as well just erm, take your dressing gown thing off because to be quite hon’ ‘cos it’s not like I haven’t seen willies, err, I went what do you mean? He went I’m gay, I said I gathered that. So anyway, as he’s like touching the bottom of me hip me willies, me erm down below went hard that’s when I like, that’s when I like a strop and he’s like, are you gay, he questioned or are you bisexual. Questioning me sexuality erm, and he carried on touching down below, and he was like asking me things about what happened when I was a kid…”

77. When probed Service User 2 said that the Registrant said that he had to examine his balls but did not say why. When asked about how long the Registrant was touching his ‘willie’ for, Service User 2 replied:

“Erm, I’d say, touching me willie and lone? Oh, I’d say individually, I couldn’t even tell you. Between 1 to 6 minutes. But then me balls, he was touching me balls for a good like 5, 10 minutes”.

78. MT’s evidence was that during the interview with the Registrant on 4 November 2020 he was asked about what Service User 2 had said in his ABE interview. The Registrant had stated that the average consultation time is 45 minutes. He said he thought he had been required to body map Service User 2. The Registrant’s account was that Service User 2 had been upset; he was crying and told the Registrant he had been sexually abused. The Registrant denied any sexual assault.

79. As part of the court process, Service User 2 had been due to attend court for his evidence and his cross-examination to be pre-recorded. Service User 2 did not attend and as a consequence the criminal charge against the Registrant was discontinued.

80. The Registrant’s evidence, supported by the custody record, was that he had been asked to examine Service User 2 to confirm whether he was fit to be detained and to note any injuries. The Registrant’s evidence was that Service User 2 had been seen by paramedics in the community prior to the to his arrest, and he therefore went through that discharge summary with Service User 2. This meant that the consultation was longer than normal. Another factor that added to the length of the consultation was that Service User 2 wanted to talk. He was adamant that the police had assaulted him and the Registrant let him talk. The Registrant’s evidence was that he examined Service User 2 and then Service User 2 started telling him in detail about abuse he had suffered as a child. Again, the Registrant let him talk. The Registrant said he left his contact information in Service User 2’s property so that Service User 2 could contact him about support for survivors of sexual abuse. This was something Service User 2 was adamant he did not want disclosed to the police. [redacted]. The Registrant said this impacted on his judgment, which was irrational. The Registrant said that he was just trying to get Service User 2 to where he needed to be. He subsequently discovered that Service User 2 has multiple offences for lying. There had been nothing sexual about the interaction, nor had it been for sexual gratification. There was nothing sexually motivated about it.

81. Under cross-examination the Registrant said that two police officers brought Service User 2 to the consultation room and sat outside. Service User 2 was wearing a gown. Service User 2 had reported pain in his side, and it was difficult to examine that area with the gown on, so the Registrant had suggested to Service User 2 that he go into the toilet within the consultation room and wrap the gown round his waist like a towel after coming out of the shower.

82. The Registrant stated that Service User 2 did not complain of pain or any problem with his penis or testicles and he (the Registrant) did not examine them. If Service User 2 had complained about those, he would have recorded that in the notes.

83. The Registrant stated that he could not recall if he had done a body map and accepted that one had not been found. He explained that if there are no physical marks, there is nothing to map. Service User 2 had accused the police of assault, so the Registrant recorded in the custody record the fact that he had carried out a full head to toe assessment. He would have looked for injuries that could have occurred during restraint, such as marks on the wrists from handcuffs. The Registrant’s evidence was that he had offered Service User 2 a chaperone, when they were standing at the custody desk. He made the point that this area is covered by CCTV which records audio, but that had not been provided for this hearing. The Registrant said that he left the choice of whether to have a chaperone present to Service User 2 because the chaperone would have been a police officer and he had alleged assault against the police.

84. The Registrant referred to the custody record, which recorded that he had been asked to see Service User 2 to establish his fitness for detention and to note his injuries. As to the length of the consultation, 1 hour 14 minutes, the Registrant went through what was involved, beginning with going through the discharge summary of the ambulance crew who had seen Service User 2 in the community. This was on top of a standard consultation which is 45 minutes, and in addition, Service User 2 had talked about his abuse.

85. It was put to the Registrant that he told Service User 2 to take the gown off, saying he had seen “loads of willies”. The Registrant responded that this is not a phrase he would use. He denied that Service User 2 was naked at any point. The Registrant stated that the allegation was false, Service User 2 was a liar, pointing to his conviction for making false representations three months later.

86. The Panel first considered the evidence suggesting that this incident took place. This was the disclosure of Service User 2 to JM, the unsigned statement from his mother and his ABE interview. The Panel, whilst cognisant that there can be confusion over fine details of events in victims of abuse, considered that had the account given to JM been accurate, then when interviewed formally, Service User 2 would have mentioned the comment he accused the Registrant of making along the lines of “did you enjoy it in your mouth”. This was key to his initial complaint. In addition, whilst acknowledging that victims of abuse often do not come forward straight away, the Panel could not ignore the fact that Service User 2 was seen by two other health professionals after he had seen the Registrant, and was provided with a solicitor, and he did not mention this alleged incident to any of them. Finally, there had been no explanation as to why Service User 2, having made this allegation, then refused to engage with the court process or the HCPC. The Panel questioned Service User 2’s credibility in view of these matters.

87. The Panel then took into account Service User 2’s character. It considered that whilst offences of theft and robbery are on one level dishonesty offences, the more telling convictions were those under the Fraud Act of making a false representation for a gain. These offences were committed two months after the alleged incident. The Panel concluded that these offences, combined with the concerns it already had about the reliability of Service User 2’s account, meant that it simply could not rely on his evidence.

88. In contrast, the Panel found that the Registrant’s evidence was credible and, therefore, reliable. He had given an account of the consultation and explained why it had taken over an hour. He had acknowledged that he may not have undertaken body mapping, namely because there may have been no obvious injuries to map. The Panel found his explanation around closing the door, and not having a chaperone present to be logical. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence and found this particular not proved.

3 – Your conduct in relation to particular 1 and 2 was sexual and/or sexually motivated – PROVED IN RELATION TO 1a

89. The Panel was aware that the Registrant’s intention was something to be inferred from the surrounding evidence.

90. The Panel began by considering the Registrant’s intention behind the bank transfers. It noted that these transfers were made a number of months after the Registrant had ceased to be linked to Service User 1 in a professional capacity, and that the Registrant’s evidence had been that he understood he was doing nothing wrong by maintaining contact with Service User 1.

91. The Panel gave careful consideration to the calls from late August 2020 onwards, as what was said could shed light on the intentions of the Registrant. The Registrant was asked about a question he asked of Service User 1 as detailed in the call log from 31 August 2020; was Service User 1 genuinely into him? The Registrant was worried he would go off with someone else. The Registrant said that as the friendship continued it became more obvious that Service User 1 had feelings. This was why the Registrant had visited him at HMP Stafford on 5 September 2020, to discuss things in person. When asked whether he (the Registrant) had feelings for Service User 1, he confirmed that he did. He wanted to know whether Service User 1 was serious, as until that point there had been a lot of banter between them.

92. The Panel found that the calls from late August 2020 and visit the Registrant made to HMP Stafford were in response to what he understood to be a sexual interest from Service User 1, which was reciprocated. The Panel found that the money the Registrant paid to Service User 1’s account via his father was to enable the communication to continue with a view to a potential sexual relationship in the future. In the Panel’s view, had the relationship been limited to a friendship, the contact would have been less frequent and perhaps limited to letters. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in making bank transfers was sexually motivated.

93. Moving to particular 2a, the Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that he did not think about what he was doing at the time he gave Service User 2 his Snapchat details. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that he was trying to help Service User 2 to access support to deal with the abuse he had suffered. The Registrant must have known that the post-it note would have been seen by custody staff, [redacted]. There had been no evidence put before the Panel upon which it could find that this act was either sexual or sexually motivated.

94. As to particular 2b, similar reasoning applied. [redacted]. The Registrant’s account had been consistent throughout. The Panel found that the Registrant was trying to be empathetic. There was no evidence that this disclosure was sexual or sexually motivated.

Misconduct and impairment

95. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation. He had additionally provided the Panel with:

• a reference from his current employer (he was working as a bar manager);

• a reference from Ms JD, Clinical Supervisor at Safety in Solutions, an organisation which supports professionals to maintain high ethical standards;

• A reflective statement.

96. In his reflection, with regard to Service User 1, the Registrant acknowledged that he had breached professional boundaries by maintaining contact with a service user who was no longer in his care. He stated that he was unaware at the time that doing so was wrong, but accepted that it had been his responsibility to understand and comply with the HCPC’s standards. In respect of Service User 2, the Registrant acknowledged that sharing personal information crossed professional boundaries. [redacted]. He was, however, trying to help Service User 2 get appropriate support.

97. With a view to ensuring that these things are not repeated, [redacted]. He said that these events had enabled him to develop a deeper understanding of the ethical framework within which healthcare professionals operate and that he is committed to working within the HCPC’s standards.

98. [redacted]

99. Under cross-examination the Registrant confirmed that in addition to managing a bar, he had also worked as a volunteer with people with drug and alcohol problems since December 2023. He said he wanted to return to Paramedic practice and help people moving forwards.

100. The Registrant acknowledged that he had breached boundaries [redacted]. He accepted that he had fallen short of expected standards and that it had been serious, although he did not realise that at the time. He was, however, unsure whether his conduct would be considered deplorable, as he sought informal advice at the time. He said the payments to Service User 1’s father were made many months after his employment at HMP Altcourse ended and contact was initiated through official channels, namely via the government website, as both parties have to consent to communication. The Registrant disputed that he had put either service user at risk of harm or caused emotional distress.

101. The Registrant’s evidence was that his conduct had been remedied through his work with JD and his personal reflection. He had been honest with the HCPC and acknowledged crossing boundaries. He did not believe that informed members of the public would be concerned because they would not know whether contact with a previous service user was alright or not. He said that whilst he could not speak for the public, he considered that there was nothing for them to be concerned about, and referred to his relative inexperience as a registered professional at the time of these events, having graduated in July 2018 and started his first registered role in December 2018.

Submissions

102. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant’s actions as found proved by the Panel amounted to misconduct. She submitted that standards 1, 6 and 9 of the HCPC’s 2016 Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics had been breached.

These were:

1.6 – You must keep relationships with service users and carers professional.

6.1 – You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues.

6.2 – you must not do anything or allow someone else to do anything which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

9.1 – You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

103. In addition, Ms Collins referred to the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics and to the guidance on maintaining professional boundaries. She submitted that the facts proved meant that the Registrant had breached professional boundaries because he had pursued a sexual relationship and shared personal details with service users. This, she submitted, was a clear departure from the expected standards and breached a fundamental principle of the profession.

104. Ms Collins submitted that there were a number of aggravating factors including risk of emotional harm, abuse of professional position, power imbalance and vulnerability of service users.

105. With regard to impairment, Ms Collins did not advance a positive case of personal impairment, but invited the Panel to consider the Registrant’s evidence and whether further remediation was required so as to reduce the risk of repetition. As to the public component, Ms Collins submitted that a finding of impairment was required to uphold proper professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession.

106. The Registrant submitted that whilst he should not have disclosed his personal details to Service User 2, he asked the Panel to take into account his own vulnerability, how it affected his judgment [redacted]. With regard to Service User 1, the Registrant maintained that his actions had not been sexually motivated. However, he acknowledged his failings and asked the Panel to review him for who he is now. He said he will not bring the profession into disrepute going forward and that if given the opportunity to continue with his career he would adhere to all the HCPC’s standards.

Legal Advice

Misconduct

• Whether the facts found amount to misconduct is a matter for the Panel's independent judgement having regard to the expected standards of conduct. There is no burden or standard of proof;

• There is no statutory definition of misconduct, but you may have regard to the guidance given by Lord Clyde in Roylance v General Medical Council (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 31. The falling short must be serious: Doughty v General Dental Council [1988] AC 164. It has been described as conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners: Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317;

• It was relevant in relation to Service User 1 that the professional relationship had ended some six months before the Registrant transferred money for calls.

• As a matter of general principle, it is permissible to take a person’s character into account when determining whether they have engaged in misconduct.

Impairment

• Misconduct and impairment are separate stages in the decision-making process, and it may be that misconduct having been found, the Panel may decide that fitness to practise is not impaired: Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin);

• The question for the Panel is whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct. Accordingly, in assessing impairment, the Panel must look at the past to assess the present (Meadow v General Medical Council [2007] 1 QB 462);

• The Panel may be assisted by the three-fold test set out in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin): Is the conduct remediable? Has it been remedied? Is it highly unlikely to recur?

• The Panel should also take into account the guidance on the interpretation of the Cohen test, as provided in CHRE v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), as formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the report into the Fifth Shipman Inquiry;

• Finally, the Panel should consider whether the need to uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

Decision on Misconduct

107. The Panel began by reviewing the HCPC’s Standards (2016) and considered that standards 1.7 and 9.1 had been breached. The Registrant, in transferring money to Service User 1’s father and disclosing personal information and details to Service User 2, had failed to keep relationships professional and this conduct would negatively impact on the public’s trust in him as a professional.

108. The Panel went on to consider the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014) and found that the following had been breached:

2.1 – understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times;

2.2 – understand what is required by the HCPC;

3.1 – understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

109. The Registrant, by his own admission, did not fully understand the HCPC’s Standards at the time of events and his actions in maintaining personal contact with Service User 1 and disclosing personal information to Service User 2 were not in their best interests. The Registrant had told the Panel that he now understands the need to maintain high standards of professional conduct, but lacked awareness of what this entailed at the relevant times.

110. As to whether the Registrant had breached professional boundaries, the Panel had regard to the relevant Practice Note which states that the fact a personal relationship began when the other person had stopped being a service user did not necessarily mean that there had been no breach of boundaries. The Panel noted that, whilst some six months had elapsed since the Registrant had ceased to be in a professional relationship with Service User 1 when the money transfers were made, Service User 1 was still in custody.

111. The Panel then had regard to the factors going to seriousness of a breach of boundaries as the guidance was that these factors were relevant to a determination of whether a breach of boundaries had occurred. There was no evidence of harm to Service User 1. Three of those factors were present, plus a factor identified by the Panel:

• There was an inherent power imbalance as Service User 1 was still a prisoner, albeit that he enabled contact between the Registrant and the father, to enable the transfer to take place.

• The Panel also found that Service User 1 appeared to have vulnerabilities. The Registrant’s evidence had been that Service User 1 had had ‘the mickey’ taken out of him in Altcourse Prison for being gay, and the evidence before the Panel was that Service User 1’s father helped him to make decisions. It had been Service User 1’s father who had contacted the HCPC on his behalf to say he would not engage in the investigation as everything that had happened with the Registrant had been consensual.

• The Registrant had failed to set clear boundaries and the evidence was that Service User 1 had sent a letter to the Registrant indicative of developing feelings for him whilst in Altcourse Prison.

• An additional aggravating factor was that the Panel had found that the money transfers had been with a view to a potential future relationship and as such, had been sexually motivated.

112. Conversely, the Registrant had not abused his professional position, in that his contact with Service User 1 had been via official channels and Service User 1 had agreed to contact, which led to the transfer of money for phone calls. There had been no predatory behaviour by the Registrant, no covering up of boundary breaches, no breach of trust or pattern of behaviour. The Registrant had not ended the professional relationship to embark on a personal relationship and there had been no overlap between the personal relationship and the provision of treatment.

113. The Panel additionally considered that mitigating factors were that the Registrant’s grandmother was unwell, which influenced his decision- making as both he and Service User 1 were close to their grandmothers. Also, the Registrant had spoken to colleagues about whether making contact with a former service user was permitted and had understood at the time that he was not breaching the HCPC’s standards by doing so.

114. The Panel considered that the aggravating factors weighed more heavily than those in mitigation, particularly the fact that Service User 1 remained in custody, and concluded that the Registrant had breached professional boundaries by transferring money for phone calls to Service User 1 via his father.

115. The Panel considered that fellow practitioners would be of the view that the Registrant’s conduct was deplorable because he facilitated and engaged in phone contact with an ex-service user with a view, at least in part, to establishing whether Service User 1 had genuine feelings for him. He had not considered how a relationship may put Service User 1 at risk given his apparent vulnerabilities, particularly whilst he remained detained.

116. With regard to Service User 2, who was in the Registrant’s professional care at the time, the Panel was of the view, as accepted by the Registrant in evidence, that sharing personal information and contact details crossed professional boundaries. With regard to the seriousness of this breach, the Panel found that the following factors affecting seriousness applied:

• [redacted];

• There was an inherent power imbalance because Service User 2 was in police custody;

• Service User 2 was vulnerable by virtue of being in custody and disclosing his previous sexual abuse.

117. There were no other aggravating factors, and in mitigation, [redacted]. His evidence was that he did not know how to handle the situation and with a desire to help Service User 2 access support, he gave Service User 2 his personal contact details. This was because Service User 2 had been adamant that he did not want the information he had shared with the Registrant to be disclosed to the police. The Registrant appropriately wished to respect the confidentiality of Service User 2.

118. The Panel then went on to consider whether in all the circumstances this breach of boundaries would be considered deplorable by fellow professionals and as such, crossed the threshold for misconduct. The Panel understood why, in the moment, the Registrant shared details of his experiences [redacted]. However, the Panel found that the breach in terms of disclosing Snapchat details was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct because the Registrant chose to give his personal social media details instead of, for example, a work email address or the name of a support group/charity organisation. The Panel determined this invitation for personal contact wholly outside the professional relationship was a serious breach of professional boundaries.

Decision on Impairment

119. The Panel was aware that it was considering current impairment, not whether the Registrant was, at the time of events, impaired. It began by considering the personal component and reviewed the evidence provided by the Registrant in the context of the 3-stage test in Cohen.

120. As to whether the Registrant’s conduct was remediable, the Panel was of the firm view that it was. Both instances of misconduct had been errors of judgement. The circumstances of each were different, and it followed that the steps to successful remediation would need to be focused on the particular circumstances and factors that led to the boundary breaches.

121. With regard whether his misconduct had been remedied, beginning with Service User 1, the Registrant had acknowledged that his actions had fallen below the expected professional standards. He had admitted that he did not have a full understanding of the standards at the time. His awareness of them and their application to his role had developed through review of the standards with JD and watching videos on the HCPC website. However, the Registrant had been unable to articulate the potential risks to service users and the harm that may result when relationships that cross professional boundaries develop. Whilst the Panel did not find that Service User 1 had been placed at a risk of harm, in order to provide assurance that the Registrant will not act in a similar manner going forward, the Panel would have expected him to show insight into the risks to both current and former service users associated with breaching professional boundaries.

122. As to Service User 2, the Registrant had again accepted that he had acted inappropriately and outlined in evidence how his work with JD had enabled him to compartmentalise his personal life and his professional life. He is now able to keep them separate, such that going forward, he has a strategy to avoid bringing his personal life into his decisions around the care of service users. [redacted].

123. [redacted].

124. Due to the Registrant’s lack of demonstrated understanding of the effects on service users of professional boundary breaches, the fact that the work with JD had only commenced after the Panel had made its findings of fact in December 2024, and the lack of detail as to what had been covered in the sessions, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight was only partially developed. It followed that there remained a risk to service users. Whilst the risk to service users going forward was, in the Panel’s view, low, not least because these proceedings will have been a salutary lesson, the Panel was not sufficiently assured by the Registrant’s remediation to date and found that the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component.

125. As to the public component, the Panel found that the Registrant’s actions in seeking to explore a personal relationship with a former service user undermined the trust that members of the public place in the Paramedic profession. Informed members of the public would not expect professionals to breach boundaries, even where the breach was consensual, because there was an inherent power imbalance whilst the service user remained in custody. Such conduct risked the reputation of the profession and was likely to result in members of the public losing trust and confidence in the profession. Likewise, informed members of the public would expect Paramedics to have the skills to avoid allowing their personal experiences to impact on their professional judgement. This was part of being a professional and members of the public may be deterred from seeking the services of Paramedics if they were concerned about professional boundaries being crossed.

126. Finally, the Panel was of the view that given the nature of the misconduct in this matter, a finding of current impairment was required to mark its unacceptability and hence uphold professional standards. Respect for professional boundaries goes to a fundamental tenet of the relationship between Paramedics and service users and is essential to trust. Confidence in the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made where misconduct of this nature had been found.

Sanction

127. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the Sanctions Policy (SP), with reference to serious cases including abuse of professional position and sexual misconduct. She submitted that, according to the SP, conditions of practice would be inappropriate in such cases. She submitted that the primary function of a sanction is to protect the public which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

128. The Registrant submitted that he knows he has done wrong and was willing to accept any sanction the Panel imposed. He said he could only apologise for his actions.

Legal Advice

129. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and was aware that:

• It should have regard to the Sanctions Policy and begin by identifying any particular aggravating or mitigating factors;

• It should work through the sanctions starting with the least restrictive, having regard to its findings at the impairment stage. It should impose the minimum sanction necessary to meet the regulator’s overarching objective, bearing in mind that the purpose of sanction is not to punish;

• It must take care to ensure that whatever sanction it imposes is proportionate, whilst at the same time bearing in mind that the interests of the profession take precedence.

130. The Panel began by considering whether there were any additional aggravating or mitigating factors beyond those identified as part of its determination of the seriousness of the Registrant’s breach of professional boundaries. These are set out above at paragraphs 111, 112, 113, 116 and 117.

131. In terms of general mitigating factors, the Registrant had acknowledged wrongdoing throughout and had apologised for his actions. He had demonstrated remorse and a genuine willingness to address the Panel’s concerns. He had started his journey of remediation, however, the Panel had identified when dealing with impairment that there was insufficient evidence of the Registrant’s understanding of the impact of boundary breaches on service users and on public confidence in the profession more widely.

132. The Panel was of the view that there were no additional aggravating factors. It had not found that the Registrant had abused his position of trust, and it did not accept Ms Collins’ submission that the Registrant’s actions amounted to sexual misconduct. The SP described sexual misconduct as: “sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that 20 is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating someone.”

133. None of these applied and the interactions with Service User 1 were entirely consensual. The Panel was not dealing with sexual misconduct and had made no findings to that effect.

134. The Panel then worked through the available sanctions in ascending order. Taking no action was not appropriate in this case as an ongoing risk to the public had been identified, and the matters were of a nature which required a sanction to be imposed in order to mark their seriousness and accordingly to uphold standards and meet the public interest.

135. The Panel considered that a caution order would not be appropriate as the Registrant had not fully remediated and had not demonstrated full insight.

136. The Panel then considered whether the risks it had identified to the public and the public interest could be appropriately addressed by conditions of practice. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant has started to develop insight and it had found that the misconduct was capable of remediation. There were no persistent or attitudinal shortcomings that would prevent the Registrant fully remediating. The Registrant had said that he would comply with conditions and the Panel believed that he would given his engagement in the process and the genuineness he had demonstrated in his evidence. Conditions could be formulated that were verifiable, workable and capable of managing the risks the Panel had identified.

137. Having regard to the Conditions Bank, the Panel determined that it would impose the conditions of practice set out in the Order below.

138. The Panel was satisfied that these conditions were proportionate to the risks it had identified to the public. The Panel’s concern was that the Registrant had not fully reflected and as such did not fully appreciate the potential risks to service users, or to the public’s view of, and confidence in, the profession when professional boundaries are breached. The Panel was also satisfied that a conditions of practice order meets the public interest, in that informed members of the public would be assured that the Registrant’s misconduct had been appropriately addressed and therefore could retain trust and confidence both in the profession and the regulatory process.

139. With regard to the frequency of meetings set out in condition 10, the Panel considered that meetings at 5-month intervals will allow sufficient time in practice between meetings for the Registrant to be able to reflect and for his time in practice to generate topics for discussion. These meetings are with a view to ensuring that the Registrant is able to demonstrate an understanding of professional boundaries and prevent recurrence of similar misconduct in the future.

140. The Panel determined that the appropriate length of the Order is 18 months. This will allow time for the Registrant to return to practice and then embark on a Professional Development Plan. This period of time subject to conditions was also sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the Panel’s findings and hence maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

141. The Panel considered that a suspension order would be disproportionate because the concerns were not of a nature or seriousness that could not be addressed by conditions of practice. It bore in mind that the purpose of sanction is not punitive, but to protect the public which includes upholding standards and maintaining confidence in the profession.

142. This order will be reviewed prior to its expiry. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by:

• The Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing;

• Evidence of the work he has undertaken with his mentor and any other relevant CPD;

• The reflective statement as specified in condition 3 (of the Education requirements);

• A reference from his employer or any organisation he is working for in a registered capacity.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Robbie Dobson, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

Education and training requirements

1. Within a calendar month of the Operative Date* you must:

a. satisfactorily complete a Level 3 Safeguarding Course relating to adults and children which includes professional boundaries; and

b. forward a copy of your results to the HCPC within seven days of receiving them.

2. Undertake CPD in accordance with the HCPC’s return to practice requirements.

3. Before this Order is reviewed, produce a reflective statement covering the learning from your CPD, with a particular focus on the impact on service users of breaching professional boundaries, and the impact of such breaches on public confidence in the profession. You must send your reflection to the HCPC prior to the review of this Order.

Informing the HCPC and others

4. You must inform the HCPC within 7 days of returning to practice in the United Kingdom.

5. You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

a. any patient safety incident you are involved in;

b. any investigation started against you; and

c. any disciplinary proceedings taken against you.

6. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

a. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

c. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

7. You must allow the HCPC to share, as necessary, details about your compliance with, and/or progress under these conditions with:

a. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

c. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

Professional development

8. You must identify a professional mentor who is registered with a statutory regulator. You must provide your mentor with a copy of the Panel’s decision and work with your mentor to formulate a Personal Development Plan** designed to address the deficiencies in the following area of your practice:

a. Understanding and working within professional boundaries.

9. Within three months of the Operative Date* you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

10. You must meet with your mentor on a 5-monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

11. You must allow your mentor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

12. You must produce a short reflective summary of each meeting with your mentor and get it signed by them as evidence of the discussions which have taken place. These summaries as must be provided to the HCPC before this Order is reviewed.

Costs

13. You are responsible for meeting any costs associated with complying with these conditions.

* Operative Date: 5 June 2025

** The PDP must specifically set out an action plan to address professional boundaries. Against each action, the PDP should set out measures that will help assess whether the action has been achieved and a target date for completing the action. The Registrant's mentor may give guidance on preparation of the plan, but it is the Registrant's responsibility to:

• prepare the PDP;

• seek approval from their line manager or mentor of the plan;

• carry out the activities needed; and

• reflect on the impact of their learning on their performance and practice.

Interim Order Application

143. The Panel next considered an application by Ms Collins for an interim conditions of practice order to cover the appeal period before the final order comes into effect.

144. Ms Collins submitted that an interim order should be made to cover the appeal period in light of the Panel’s decision that a conditions of practice order is necessary to protect the public and in the public interest. She submitted that an interim order is necessary on both these grounds. She asked for an interim order for 18 months to cover the time it would take to deal with any appeal. The Registrant made no submissions.

145. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it could make an interim order if doing so was necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should bear in mind its previous findings and consider whether it is necessary to place any restriction on the Registrant’s practice as of today. If so, it should determine the appropriate form and duration of any interim order.

146. The Panel considered whether to impose an interim order. It was mindful of its earlier findings and that the Registrant had not provided sufficient assurance to the Panel that he was fit to return to safe practice. The Panel decided that it would be incompatible with that finding if there was no interim order in place.

147. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an interim conditions of practice order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

148. The Panel made an Interim Conditions of Practice Order for 18 months, in the same terms as the Substantive Order, save that, for clarity, the ‘Operative Date’ remains 5 June 2025. This was to allow for any appeal. When the 28-day appeal period expires, this Interim Order will come to an end unless an appeal has been filed with the High Court. If there is no appeal, the Final Order shall take effect when the appeal period expires.

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 Robbie Dobson

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
06/05/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Conditions of Practice
09/12/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard
19/08/2022	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
23/05/2022	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
24/02/2022	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
24/11/2021	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension