Bradley Osner

Background

1. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.

2. The Registrant was first registered with the HCPC on 6 September 2016, having submitted an application dated 24 October 2015.

3. On 19 May 2016 the Registrant was convicted of culpable homicide in the Republic of South Africa.

4. The Registrant renewed his registration with the HCPC on subsequent occasions as set out in Particular 2 of the Allegation and did not disclose his conviction on any such occasion. It is alleged that at no point did the Registrant disclose his conviction of culpable homicide to the HCPC.

5. A referral was made to the HCPC by the vetting manager at Thames Valley Police, resulting in these proceedings.

6. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted Particulars 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Panel announced that Particulars 1 and 2 were proved by admission.

The evidence

7. The HCPC relied on the witness statement of Vesna Maglov, HCPC Registrations Manager, whose evidence was accepted by the Registrant without the need for the witness to attend.

8. The Registrant gave evidence on oath in which he adopted the contents of his statement dated 10 September 2024 and his detailed responses to the Allegation dated 16 January 2025. He gave further evidence in response to questions from Ms Patel on behalf of the HCPC and the Panel.

9. In his witness statement, the Registrant stated that:

• His conviction related to an incident in South Africa in 2002 when he caused the death of a pedestrian when driving;

• The matter was fully investigated by the Police and about two years later he was informed that there would be no further action and the case was closed;

• About three years later he was contacted by the Police who informed him that that they had no record of the case being closed and that it would need to be considered further;

• In due course, a case against him for culpable homicide was listed for trial in 2016;

• At about that time, he was in the process of applying for Paramedic roles in the UK which would require his registration with the HCPC;

• Defending the court case would have involved travelling backwards and forwards to South Africa, which was not practical at the time. To avoid this, he was advised by his attorney to accept a guilty plea and a five-year suspended sentence, which was a common outcome in culpable homicide cases in South Africa;

• He was unable to recall the exact date when he started the process of applying for registration with the HCPC and what stage the criminal case had reached;

• Following registration in the UK, he started working as a Paramedic for Falck in July 2016 and later worked for London Ambulance Service;

• On subsequently renewing his registration with the HCPC, he did not pay attention to what he was submitting by way of information and simply hit the renew button to start his direct debit.

10. When questioned by Ms Patel, the Registrant asserted that that he was unaware that his guilty plea had resulted in a conviction and that remained his state of mind on each occasion when he applied to renew his registration with the HCPC.

11. With regard to the renewals of his registration with the HCPC, he stated, in effect, that he had not applied his mind to the question as to whether he needed to disclose the outcome of his court case in South Africa.

12. When questioned by the Panel, the Registrant stated that he had face-to-face meetings with his attorney in South Africa when he received advice about pleading guilty to the offence of culpable homicide and accepting a five-year suspended sentence of imprisonment. He stated that he had attended court on about three occasions, including the hearing at which he entered his guilty plea in person.

13. He was referred to a clearance certificate from South Africa dated April 2016, which did not disclose that he had been convicted of any offence. He confirmed that he had applied for this certificate some months before he was convicted. He stated that it had not occurred to him to apply for any updating clearance certificate after his court appearances.

Decision on facts

14. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so that the Particulars of the Allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

15. As stated above, Particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation were proved by way of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 3

Your conduct in relation to particular 2 was dishonest in that you sought to conceal your conviction from the HCPC - Proved

16. With regard to Particular 3, the Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Patel and Mr Hussain-Dupré. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

17. The Panel did not believe the Registrant’s explanation that he was unaware that he had a conviction as a result of his court case in South Africa. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been advised by an attorney and had attended court, when he pleaded guilty to the offence of culpable homicide which resulted in a suspended five-year term of imprisonment.

18. Further, the Panel did not believe the Registrant’s evidence that on renewing his registration with the HCPC on the occasions detailed in Particular 2, he simply overlooked the need to disclose his conviction.

19. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had on each occasion of renewing his registration failed to disclose the fact of his conviction in order to conceal it from the HCPC and that, on each occasion he was dishonest.

20. It follows that Particular 3 of the Allegation is proved.

Decision on Grounds

21. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in relation to Particulars 2 and 3, or either of them, amounted to misconduct, as alleged in Particular 4 of the Allegation.

22. Following the Panel’s decision on facts, the Registrant admitted misconduct.

23. The Panel was mindful that whether the proven facts constitute misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.

24. The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 as:

‘a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a (medical) practitioner in the particular circumstances’.

25. The Panel found that the Registrant had been in breach of the following standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics, that were in place at the relevant time:

‘9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if you have been … found guilty of a criminal offence’.

26. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct in dishonestly concealing his conviction from the HCPC fell seriously short of the required standards and thereby constituted misconduct.

Decision on impairment

27. The Registrant denied that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, as alleged in Particular 5 of the Allegation.

28. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Patel submitted that, by repeatedly concealing his conviction from the HCPC over a number of years, the Registrant demonstrated that he could not be trusted to uphold the core standards of honesty and integrity required of a member of the profession. She submitted that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

29. On the Registrant’s behalf, Mr Hussain-Dupré relied on the Registrant’s written reflections as evidencing that his honesty and integrity are no longer in doubt. He stated that, apart from the Registrant’s conviction relating to the offence committed in 2002, he has been, and is, a person of good character. He referred to the Registrant’s past and current employment and testimonials provided by the Registrant’s professional colleagues, in particular, that from the Registrant’s manager, who has known the Registrant for 20 years and speaks highly of him professionally and personally.

30. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively.

31. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

32. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired by reason of his conviction, having regard to the passage of time since the index events: the offence to which it related occurred in 2002 and the conviction itself was in 2016.

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

34. With regard to the personal component, there have never been any concerns about the Registrant’s clinical practice, in which he appears to be highly qualified and experienced. The Panel did not consider that its findings of fact indicated that the Registrant posed a risk of harm to the public in his clinical practice.

35. However, the Panel was concerned that the Registrant’s concealment of his conviction from the HCPC was repeated over a period of many years and that it only came to light as a result of his application for employment with Thames Valley Police. The Panel was also concerned that throughout his evidence the Registrant asserted that he was unaware that he had been convicted of an offence until he received a Clearance Certificate dated 17 May 2024 from the South African Police service listing the May 2026 conviction for culpable homicide. In so doing, he showed a lack of insight and a continuing lack of candour.

36. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s reflections but found them superficial. The Panel also noted that the testimonials of his professional colleagues did not show an awareness of these proceedings and did not directly address the Registrant’s honesty and integrity.

37. The Panel was unable to exclude the possibility that the Registrant would act with similar lack of candour should circumstances arise were it in his interests to do so. In the circumstances, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired in respect of the personal component.

38. With regard to the public component, the Panel took into account that honesty and integrity are fundamental requirements of members of the profession. The Registrant’s dishonest and repeated concealment of his conviction from the HCPC was such a serious departure from professional standards as to require a finding of current impairment. A failure to do so would undermine public confidence in both the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. A finding of current impairment on public interest grounds was required both as a deterrent to others and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the HCPC’s register and the reputation of the profession.

39. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of both personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

40. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively.

41. Ms Patel did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction but drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy concerning dishonesty.

42. Mr Hussain-Dupré invited the Panel to consider the imposition of a Suspension Order to give the Registrant the opportunity to demonstrate to a future Panel the lessons that he had learned from these proceedings.

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

44. The mitigating factors in this case are that, apart from the misconduct to which this case relates, the Registrant has had a long and impressive career as a Paramedic without any other concern about his conduct having come to the attention of his Regulator. He has also engaged fully in these proceedings.

45. The aggravating factor is that the Registrant had many opportunities to inform the HCPC of his conviction but maintained his dishonest concealment over a number of years.

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

47. A Conditions of Practice Order is not relevant as there are no concerns about the Registrant’s clinical practice.

48. In considering the imposition of a Suspension Order, the Panel had particular regard to the following matters:

• The nature of the Registrant’s dishonesty was repeatedly notifying his Regulator that he had no conviction because he feared that its disclosure might prevent his re-registration and continued practice as a Paramedic;

• There are no public protection concerns. The Registrant is a highly qualified Paramedic whose services are of potential benefit to the public;

• The Panel was of the view that the Registrant is capable of developing his understanding and insight following the outcome of these proceedings to prevent any repetition of similar misconduct in the future.

49. Having regard to the serious nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, the need to uphold proper standards and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months is the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

50. The Panel considered a Strike Off Order but on balance determined that suspension was more appropriate given the specific features of the case.

51. On a future review of this order, the panel is likely to be assisted by:

• The Registrant’s reflection on, and insight arising from, the Panel’s decision in this case;

• Evidence that the Registrant has undergone training in relation to the importance of professional ethics and what he has learned from such training;

• Character references relating to the Registrant’s honesty, integrity and candour.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Bradley Osner for a period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

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

Interim Order Application

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

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Bradley Osner