Daniel Davis

Preliminary Matters

Issues relating to documentation

1. Mr Pataky, on behalf of the Registrant, noted that a bundle had been circulated to the Panel which contained information that had subsequently been redacted. He submitted that, as an experienced and professional Panel, it must disregard information that had been redacted. The Panel invited Mr Pataky to identify the information which must now be disregarded and he helpfully identified each of the redactions.

2. Ms Patel, on behalf of the HCPC, confirmed the position as outlined by Mr Pataky.

3. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of its responsibilities to ensure that its decision was made on the basis of the admissible evidence. It must therefore entirely put out of its mind the material it had read which had subsequently been redacted.

4. The Panel was provided with the agreed bundle, and it ensured that its assessment of the evidence was confined to the material in that bundle. As an experienced and professional panel it entirely put out of its mind each of the elements which had been redacted.
Special measures

5. Ms Patel made an application for special measures in respect of the evidence of Colleague A, as she had made an Allegation of a sexual nature and to assist in enabling her to give her best evidence. The initial applications were that:

• Colleague A is anonymised in the hearing, public transcripts and public determination

• The Registrant has his camera switched off during Colleague A’s evidence

6. Ms Patel subsequently made an additional application that Colleague A’s evidence should be heard in private. Colleague A had recognised the name of a member of the public who was attending the hearing. The member of the public was known to her and to the Registrant. Ms Patel submitted that Colleague A would be identified by a member or members of the public if the hearing were to be heard in public, which would be inconsistent with the request for special measures. Ms Patel also submitted that the evidence given by Colleague A may be adversely affected if her evidence were to be heard in public in these circumstances.

7. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Pataky did not oppose the application.

8. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Special Measures’ and ‘Conducting hearings in private’. The Panel bore in mind the requirement to ensure that the hearing is fair to both parties, the public interest in ensuring that witnesses give their best evidence, and the public interest in open justice.

9. The Panel was satisfied that Colleague A should be treated as a vulnerable witness because she has made an Allegation of a sexual nature. It considered that it was desirable to adopt special measures to enable Colleague A to give her best evidence and that all the measures proposed by Ms Patel were appropriate. The Panel considered the public interest in open justice, but decided that it was outweighed by the need to protect the anonymity of Colleague A and to enable her to give her best evidence.

10. The Panel therefore directed that Colleague A should be anonymised, that the Registrant should switch his camera off during her evidence, and that her evidence should be heard in private.

Background

11. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic. He registered with the HCPC in January 2024.

12. At the material time the Registrant was engaged on a freelance basis by Lambda Medical Ltd (“Lambda”). Lambda is an independent ambulance service that provides event medical cover and ambulance transportation services. The Registrant was also employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (“YAS”) from 29 April 2024.

13. While engaged on a contract with Lambda, the Registrant worked two shifts with Colleague A, a Student Paramedic, on 24 April 2024 and 20 June 2024. Colleague A raised concerns about the Registrant’s conduct during the shift on 20 June 2024. An internal investigation was conducted by DD, Resilience Manager of Lambda, following which the Director of Lambda made a referral to the HCPC on 5 July 2024.
Admissions

14. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant admitted the following Particulars of the Allegation:

• 1(b)(i) The Registrant admitted that he made the comment and that in doing so he did not maintain professional boundaries;

• 1(b)(ii) The Registrant admitted that he made the comment and that in doing so he did not maintain professional boundaries;

• 1(b)(iv) The Registrant admitted that he made the comment and that in doing so he did not maintain professional boundaries;

• 1(c) The Registrant admitted that he drew a penis on Colleague A’s laptop and that in doing so he did not maintain professional boundaries.

15. The Panel noted that the Registrant was represented and that the admissions were unequivocal. It therefore found Particulars 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii), 1(b)(iv) and 1(c) proved by admission.

Evidence

16. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give oral evidence:

• CA, Emergency Care Assistant (Lambda and YAS) witness statement dated 22 August 2024 – his statement exhibited his internal statement in the Lambda investigation (24 June 2024);

• DD, Resilience Manager (Lambda) witness statement dated 22 August 2024 – his statement exhibited the Registrant’s statement in the Lambda investigation date 17 July 2024 and Lambda’s sexual safety charter;

• Colleague A witness statement dated 13 August 2024 – her statement exhibited her statement in the internal investigation dated 24 June 2024 (her “Lambda statement”).

17. The HCPC bundle also included the Registrant’s response documents including reflective statements and an employment reference.

18. The Panel heard oral evidence from the Registrant. He adopted his “position on allegations” contained in the Registrant’s bundle, which summarised whether he accepted or denied each Particular of the Allegation. He also adopted his reflective statements as part of the evidence.

19. The Panel also read the Registrant’s bundle which included testimonials, training certificates, and evidence of satisfactory completion of probation at YAS.

20. In reaching its decisions the Panel did not take into account the hearsay evidence given by Colleague A which came out in her oral evidence. The Panel’s consideration of the evidence was limited to the direct evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence.

Decision on Facts

21. The Panel took into account submissions on behalf of the HCPC made by Ms Patel and submissions on behalf of the Registrant made by Mr Pataky.

22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised on the burden and standard of proof, the Panel’s approach to the assessment of witness evidence and factual findings, and the meaning of the words “sexual” and “sexual motivation”. She advised that the Registrant is of good character, and the relevance of good character. Her advice also included reference to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’.

23. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s good character, but it also noted, on the Registrant’s own admission, that during the shift on 20 June 2024 he had not maintained professional boundaries. He described his own behaviour on that day as inappropriate, unprofessional and childish. Given these admissions, the Panel gave little weight to his good character.

24. The Panel noted that Colleague A’s oral evidence was consistent with her witness statement and with her statement in the Lambda investigation. Her statement in the Lambda investigation was written only four days after the shift. Her statement in the Lambda investigation did not include reference to the events during the shift on 26 April 2024. When she was asked about this matter, Colleague A explained that her complaint about the Registrant’s behaviour related to the shift on 20 June 2024, and her Lambda statement described that shift. Her HCPC witness statement included reference to the shift on 26 April 2024 because she was asked by the solicitor taking her statement whether she worked with the Registrant on any other occasions. The Panel considered that this was a credible and understandable explanation. It did not consider that the omission of any reference to the 26 April 2024 shift in Colleague A’s statement for Lambda undermined her credibility or the reliability of her evidence, rather it demonstrated her unwillingness to embellish her original complaint.

25. In his submissions, Mr Pataky invited the Panel to conclude that there were inconsistencies in Colleague A’s evidence. The Panel did not find any examples of contradictions in Colleague A’s evidence. When her oral evidence was compared to her initial statement, she had not recounted a fundamentally different description of what had occurred during the shift on 20 June 2024. Although there was one additional comment that Colleague A had not included in her Lambda statement, the Panel did not consider that this undermined her overall credibility and reliability, with respect to those events which she had clearly stated within her Lambda statement.

26. The Panel did not agree with Mr Pataky's submissions that the Allegation made by Colleague A, in relation to Particular 1(b)(vi) lacked the “ring of truth”. To the contrary the Panel considered that it was plausible that the Registrant would have made such a statement within the context of the discussion described by Colleague A.

27. The Panel did not consider that the evidence of CA undermined or was inconsistent with Colleague A’s evidence. CA confirmed Colleague A’s account in respect of some of the comments, those that were admitted by the Registrant. Although he did not confirm the comments or behaviour that the Registrant denies, the Panel noted that he was not present throughout the shift on 20 June 2024, that he may not have seen the behaviour alleged or heard the comments, and that his recollection of the events may have been incomplete.

28. The Panel considered CA’s evidence that Colleague A was laughing at the Registrant’s jokes and that both were joining in. The Panel did not consider that this evidence undermined Colleague A’s subsequent complaint. The Panel recognised that there were a wide variety of possible responses, especially as they were working a long shift together to the Registrant’s behaviour, and that Colleague A’s immediate response or reaction did not necessarily indicate that she was comfortable with the comments made. Colleague A was in a junior position to the Registrant, and it would have been difficult for her to raise any concern with the Registrant. The Panel noted that she did challenge some of his comments by saying “that’s harsh”.

29. The Panel considered Mr Pakaty’s submission that Colleague A was motivated to provide an account which was not true because she had perceived the advice given by the Registrant about her treatment of a paediatric patient as a criticism, and because of the hurtful comments he had made about her music and anorexia. The Panel carefully considered these submissions, but its assessment was that Colleague A was balanced and measured in her evidence. She acknowledged that the Registrant had provided assistance to her in the shift on 26 April 2024 and that he had kindly bought her breakfast in the shift on 20 June 2024. She was unsure about the Registrant’s motivation. Colleague A was not self-focussed. She was particularly critical of the Registrant in relation to comments which she considered could have a significant negative impact on other people, and she highlighted his comments about anorexia, suicide, and rape.

30. When assessing the credibility and reliability of the Registrant’s evidence, the Panel noted that his denials have been consistent. The Panel noted that in his statement for Lambda the Registrant stated, “Although I cannot remember specific quotations, I do not believe either of my colleagues on the day to be dishonest and would personally vouch for their upstanding characters and honesty”. The Registrant appeared to accept that in this statement that he may have made some comments which he had forgotten by 17 July 2024. The Panel acknowledged that at this time the Registrant had not been provided with full details of the complaint, but he nevertheless appeared to accept, at this time, that Colleague A was honest.

31. In considering the plausibility of the Registrant’s denials, the Panel had regard to the behaviour which the Registrant had admitted and the close alignment of those admissions with the evidence of Colleague A. There was also, to a large extent, agreement between Colleague A and the Registrant on the context and surrounding circumstances for the two shifts on 26 April 2024 and 20 June 2024. The Panel considered that it was unlikely that Colleague A had invented the scenarios she described, particularly because the context was agreed by the Registrant. An example is the incident where Colleague A alleges that the Registrant placed his hand or hands on her thighs. The Registrant agreed with the context described by Colleague A that he behaved in a childish matter by sliding down the seat to prevent her sitting down and that he placed her food on the grass.

32. In respect of one of the alleged comments, the Panel found that there was insufficiently cogent evidence to find the Particular proved, but it did not consider that this conclusion undermined the overall credibility and reliability of Colleague A’s evidence.

33. For these reasons, the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A to that of the Registrant.

Particular 1(a) – found proved

“On 26 April 2024, you grabbed Colleague A’s waist without her consent”.

34. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague A. She described that she travelled with the Registrant to the south coast and that this involved a long drive, beginning early in the morning. This was the first occasion she had worked alongside the Registrant. On the way the Registrant and Colleague A stopped at a service station for refreshments. While Colleague A was waiting in the queue for a coffee the Registrant approached her from behind and grabbed her waist with both his hands

35. The Panel also accepted Colleague A’s explanation that this incident was not included in her Lambda statement because her complaint related to the later shift on 20 June 2024

36. The Panel found Colleague A’s account to be plausible. She described moving her hips forward and away from the Registrant’s touch.

37. The Panel considered that it was understandable that Colleague A had not made a formal complaint to Lambda about this incident, as it was a single incident and, as Colleague A stated in her witness statement, she thought that she could give the Registrant a second chance.

38. The Registrant’s conduct in Particular 1(a) did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A because there was no reason for the Registrant to touch Colleague A, and particularly to touch her on the waist. This incident happened in a public place when they were both in uniform.

Particular 1(b)(iii) – found proved

“The top of the radio would fit into your vagina or words to that effect”

39. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague A. Her oral evidence was consistent with her witness statement and her initial statement to Lambda, made only four days after the shift in question. In her HCPC witness statement she described the context of the comment. Lambda medical provide radios to enable their staff at an event to communicate to other members of staff. The radio is rectangular with a curved antenna.

40. Although CA was present, according to Colleague A, he confirmed only part of incident described by Colleague A. However, at the time he wrote his statement on 24 June 2024, he was unable to recall “the exact comments that were made”. His understanding at the time was that the comments were in the “essence of camaraderie”. Given this understanding, there was therefore no reason why he would remember the details of all the comments. There was therefore no inconsistency between the evidence of Colleague A and CA.

41. The Registrant and CA described a different comment made by the Registrant about the Registrant sitting on the radios and them getting stuck in her rectum. The Panel considered that it was likely that both comments had been made as alleged in Particulars 1(b)(iii) and 1(b)(iv), and that it was unsurprising that there were differences between the recollections of different individuals.

42. In considering this Particular the Panel noted that the Registrant had referred in his evidence to a discussion with an obstetric surgeon about objects which might become stuck inside the body. This evidence did not support his account that the only discussion was about objects being stuck in the rectum.

43. The Registrant’s conduct did not maintain professional boundaries. Self-evidently the comment was unprofessional and inappropriate.

Particular 1(b)(v) – found not proved

“Your phone makes my dick look big or words to that effect”

44. In its assessment of the cogency of the evidence in support of the each of the Particulars relating to the 20 June 2024 shift, the Panel gave weight to Colleague A’s Lambda statement, as the most contemporaneous account of events on that shift. In that statement there was no reference to the comment “your phone makes my dick look big” in that statement and no other contemporaneous or near contemporaneous record. The first reference to this comment was in Colleague A’s witness statement. The Panel also noted Colleague A’s recollection that CA was present when this comment was made, and the absence of any corroboration of this comment within his evidence.

45. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence provided by the HCPC to discharge their burden of proof.

Particular 1(b)(vi) – found proved

“I will get you struck off the HCPC register before you have even qualified or words to that effect”

46. Colleague A told the Panel that the Registrant had made it clear to her that she should attend the patient on her own and that due to the events on the day she did not feel that she would want to request assistance from the Registrant. She had responded to a call and attended a paediatric patient. She recalled that the paediatric patient had a cut on their hand and that she had given appropriate advice to the parent and had documented this advice in the paperwork, and she had discharged the patient. On her return she had explained the outcome to the Registrant, and he had been critical, including making a statement that he would get her struck of the HCPC register before she had qualified.

47. The comment in 1(b)(vi) was included in Colleague A’s Lambda’s statement.

48. The Registrant gave a different account of the incident. He told the Panel that he was not in attendance, but that he understood, from Colleague A’s description of the incident, that the paediatric patient had a head injury and that she had not given “worsening advice” to the parent. “Worsening advice” is advice about the steps the parent should take in the event of the child developing of certain symptoms following the incident. The Registrant said that he had spoken to Colleague A and explained that by not giving “worsening advice” and by not reviewing the case with himself, his own HCPC registration was potentially at risk.

49. The Panel noted that both parties agreed that there was a reference to HCPC registration within the discussion, but disagreed about the details of the child paediatric case and the subsequent conversation. While both Colleague A and the Registrant were clear in their accounts, the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A for the reasons given above.

50. The Registrant’s conduct did not maintain professional boundaries. The Registrant’s responsibility, as the most senior clinician, was to support and mentor his junior colleagues, including Colleague A. In some circumstances it might be appropriate to refer to HCPC regulation and professional standards, but it would never be appropriate to make the comment “I will get you struck off the HCPC register before you have even qualified”.

Particular 1(b)(vii)

“That bugs on Colleague A’s legs were raping her and/or that you would place her in a taxi so as not to incriminate yourself”

51. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague A. Her oral evidence was consistent with her witness statement and her initial statement to Lambda, made only four days after the shift in question.

52. Although the Registrant denied making this comment, the Panel found Colleague A’s account to be plausible. It was a hot day and it was agreed evidence that there were bugs in the air. In his statement for Lambda the Registrant describes that he used a clinical wipe to clean a splattered bug stain on Colleague A’s laptop while she was not present. The shift was long with only a small number of patients requiring attention, and there were times during the shift when there was informal chat, described by the Registrant as “banter”, involving the Registrant, Colleague A and CA. At times the Registrant was sitting next to Colleague A on a picnic bench beneath a gazebo and would have been able to see her legs. The Registrant’s use of sexual imagery was consistent with the behaviour he had admitted, which he described as childish and immature. The Panel considered it unlikely that Colleague A would have invented the comment in Particular 1(b)(vii).

53. The Registrant’s conduct did not maintain professional boundaries. Self-evidently the comment was unprofessional and inappropriate.

Particular 1(d) – found proved

“On 20 June 2024, you placed your hands on Colleague A’s thighs without her consent”.

54. Colleague A described that she had purchased dinner from one of the stalls at the event. When she returned to the gazebo she placed her food on the table. The Registrant then slid down the picnic bench to prevent her sitting down. Colleague A said that she would like to sit down and Mr Davis placed his hands on her thighs. Colleague A pushed him to make him stop touching her legs. The Registrant then got up, picked up Colleague A’s food from the table and placed it on the grass. In her oral evidence Colleague A was uncertain whether the Registrant placed one or both his hands on her thighs. The Panel did not consider that this undermined the reliability of her evidence. It was understandable that her recollection was of the unwanted touching, rather than the specific detail of whether it was one or both hands.

55. In his evidence the Registrant agreed that he had slid along the picnic bench to prevent Colleague A sitting down and that he had subsequently placed Colleague A’s food on the grass. He denied that he had touched Colleague A’s thighs.

56. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague A. Her oral evidence was consistent with her witness statement and her initial statement to Lambda. The Registrant had confirmed all the details of Colleague A’s account with the exception of the touching without consent.

57. The Panel was satisfied that the touching of Colleague A was a deliberate act and was not accidental. There was no need for the Registrant to be close enough to Colleague A to touch her while they were waiting at the gazebo and not engaging in clinical tasks. The Registrant’s conduct was unprofessional and inappropriate and did not maintain professional boundaries.

Particular 2 – found proved

“Your conduct as set out in particulars 1 (a), (b)(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (c) and/or (d) above was sexually motivated and/or sexual in nature”.

58. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s conduct, in the identified Particulars and as found proved, was sexual in nature. The Panel had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’. It considered the test for a criminal offence of sexual assault as set out in paragraph 14 of the practice note:

A. An act which was, whatever the circumstances, sexual; For instance this could include the deliberate touching of the complainant’s genitalia in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for it; or

B. An act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. An example of this might be where a registrant sends a text message to a complainant which is capable of being read in different ways, one of which is sexual, and the circumstances suggest that the registrant intended it to be read in that way.

59. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s touching of Colleague A was sexual because of the nature and the circumstances of the touching. The Registrant did not know Colleague A, and had only worked with her during the two shifts on 26 April 2024 and 20 June 2024. The touching was to Colleague A’s waist and to her thighs. These are areas of intimate touching between individuals who are in a personal, familial, or a close friendship. A close friendship did not explain the touching in this case. This was not a tap on the shoulder, or any other form of contact which might take place between colleagues who do not know each other.

60. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s comments in 1(b)(iii) and 1(b)(iv) were sexual. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s account that the comments were made in the context of a work related discussion about the insertion of objects into the rectum and such objects becoming stuck. Both the comments were directed to Colleague A. There was no evidence that similar comments were made by the Registrant towards CA. The comments referred to the insertion of objects into the vagina and into the rectum.

61. The Panel also found that the comment in Particular (1)(b)(vii) was sexual. This included a reference to rape and the Registrant not incriminating himself in respect of such. This comment refers to a sexual act, and there is nothing in the context or circumstances which could justify or explain such a comment.

62. The Panel noted Mr Pakaty’s submissions on behalf of the Registrant relating to the admitted Particular 1(b), that the Registrant drew a penis on Colleague A’s laptop. Mr Pakaty submitted that this was childish immature behaviour, and therefore not sexual. The Panel agreed that the conduct was childish and immature, but it did not consider that this excluded the conduct also being sexual. Sexual behaviour may be carried out in a juvenile manner. The drawing was of male genitalia, rather than any other childish drawing. The act of drawing a penis is, by its nature, sexual.

63. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s conduct, in the identified particulars and as found proved, was sexually motivated.

64. The Panel considered whether the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. It noted the guidance in the case of Haris v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 that the best evidence of a registrant’s motivation is their behaviour. If the conduct is overtly sexual in nature, the absence of a plausible, innocent explanation for the conduct will invariably result in a finding of sexual motivation.

65. The Panel considered the Registrant’s behaviour, as found proved. The Panel was of the view that it was childish, immature, behaviour. The Registrant was bored, and behaving in a way to attract attention. However, the Panel considered that behaviour can be both childish, immature, and sexually motivated. The Panel could identify no reason for the Registrant’s touching of Colleague A’s waist on 26 April 2024, other than it was for sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Panel noted that his behaviour on 20 June 2024 was directed towards Colleague A, rather than towards CA, and it was sexual, for the reasons described above. The fact that the Registrant was behaving in a childish manner does not explain why it took the form that it did (drawing of a penis, comment about rape, comments about insertion of top of radio into vagina and rectum, touching of thighs) or why it was directed to Colleague A. In the absence of an explanation, the Panel inferred that the Registrant’s conduct was for sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

66. The Panel therefore found that the conduct in Particulars 1(a), 1(b)(iii), 1(b)(iv), 1(b)(vii), 1(c) and 1(d) was sexual and was sexually motivated.

Decision on Statutory Grounds

67. The Panel considered whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 - 2 amounted to misconduct. It took into account its factual findings, together with the submissions made by Ms Patel on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant. Mr Pataky accepted that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

68. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. No burden of proof applied and the Panel should consider whether the proven facts are sufficiently serious properly to be categorised as misconduct.

69. When considering whether the facts proved amounted to misconduct, the Panel noted that not all breaches of the HCPC’s 'Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics' need amount to a finding of misconduct.

70. The Panel noted the advice provided in respect of Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) in which the Court referred to Roylance and described misconduct as “a falling short by omission or commission of the standards of conduct expected among medical practitioners, and such falling short must be serious”.

71. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct in Particulars 1-2 amounted to a breach of the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’ (2016) as follows:

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

72. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to a breach of the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics’ (2023) as follows:

• 2.1 - maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

• 2.4 - understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council, including, but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

• 2.6 - recognise that relationships with service users, carers and others should be based on mutual respect and trust, maintaining high standards of care in all circumstances.

• 2.11 - recognise the power imbalance that comes with being a health professional, and ensure that they do not abuse this for personal gain.

• 7.1 - use effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate with service users, carers, colleagues and others.

• 8.1 - work in partnership with service users, carers, colleagues and others.

• 8.3 - understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an autonomous practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team.

• 8.6 - understand the qualities, behaviours and benefits of leadership

• 8.10 - act as a role model for others.

73. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct in Particulars 1 and 2, fell far below professional standards. The Panel took into account the context and surrounding circumstances. The Registrant’s behaviour involved emotional harm to Colleague A, a junior colleague who placed her trust in the Registrant to provide professional support and a professional working environment. The Registrant’s behaviour took place in a public environment, and there was the potential for his behaviour to be seen or his comments to be heard by a member of the public. There was a power imbalance between the Registrant and Colleague A. The Registrant was the most senior clinician, and during the shifts on 26 April 2024 and 20 June 2024 he was the only member of staff registered with the HCPC. At least some of the proven behaviour on 20 June 2024 took place in the presence of CA. The Panel noted that the Registrant was a newly qualified Paramedic, but the training he had received on the HCPC Standards and maintaining professional boundaries as part of his university course should have been uppermost in his mind.

74. In the Panel’s judgment the Registrant’s conduct in making sexually motivated comments to Colleague A and making physical contact with her that was sexually motivated was extremely serious and such that fellow professionals would regard it to have been deplorable.

75. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s conduct in Particulars 1 and 2 was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

Decision on impairment

76. The Panel went on to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct.

77. The Panel had regard to all the evidence presented in this case, together with the submissions of Ms Patel and Mr Pakaty. Mr Pakaty submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired on the basis of the personal component, but the Registrant accepts that his fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the public component.

78. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’, and it received and accepted legal advice. The Panel bore in mind that the purpose of the hearing was not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise. The Panel assessed the Registrant’s fitness to practise at today’s date.

79. In relation to the personal component, the Panel noted Mr Pakaty’s submissions that the Registrant is not impaired on public protection grounds. Mr Pakaty’s submissions included reference to the Registrant’s engagement, his remorse and remediation, his ability to take full responsibility, his ability to respond and reflect on events, and his desire to put things right and apologise. Mr Pakaty also invited the Panel to consider the testimonials, including a testimonial from the Registrant’s current line manager at YAS. This testimonial described the Registrant’s interactions with colleagues as “respectful, compassionate, and appropriate”. The Registrant’s current line manager has full confidence in his character and professionalism.

80. The Panel was of the view that sexual and sexually motivated behaviour is attitudinal in nature and therefore more difficult to remediate. In this case, the Panel’s factual findings were limited to the Registrant’s behaviour involving a single individual during two shifts. The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was potentially remediable, but that such remediation would require in depth reflection and evidence that reflection and learning about requirements for professional behaviour and respect for all colleagues has been embedded in the Registrant’s practice.

81. The Panel considered whether there is currently a risk of repetition of similar conduct. The Panel’s overall assessment was that the Registrant’s level of insight was developing. The Panel noted that at a very early stage the Registrant had recognised that his conduct was unprofessional and wrong. He apologised and expressed regret in his Lambda statement. In his subsequent reflective statements he considered the impact of his behaviour on Colleague A, and in those statements he was self-critical. However, these reflections primarily addressed the matters that he admitted at the outset of this hearing.

82. The Registrant’s response to the Panel’s findings, through Mr Pataky, was to accept the seriousness of those findings, and that his fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the public component. This acknowledgement, together with the Registrant’s full engagement in the proceedings and his partial admissions, indicated that there is the potential for the Registrant to reflect further on the Panel’s findings.

83. The Panel considered that there were a number of areas in which it was not persuaded that the Registrant had demonstrated sufficient insight. The Registrant is entitled to maintain his denial of some of the factual Particulars of the Allegation and that his behaviour was not sexual or sexually motivated, but the Panel considered that his reflections did not extend to all the matters the Panel had found proved. For example, there was insufficient reflection on the impact of sexual or sexually motivated behaviour on public confidence in the profession. The Panel also had insufficient confidence that the Registrant understands why he acted as he did during the shifts on 26 April 2024 and 20 June 2024 to provide reassurance that such conduct will not be repeated.

84. The Panel noted that the Registrant has completed relevant training courses, including a course on sexually inappropriate behaviour. However, the Panel were not persuaded that the Registrant has fully assimilated and embedded in his practice the learning from the training he has undertaken. In his oral evidence the Registrant confirmed the courses he had completed, but he did not give examples of what he had learned and how, if at all, this has changed his behaviour or his attitude towards his female colleagues. The Panel asked the Registrant to give examples of what he would do differently. In response he gave an example of a situation where he had challenged outdated language used by a colleague. The Panel was not reassured by this example that the Registrant understands the high standards of behaviour he must demonstrate as a registered professional, including when he is working alongside more junior colleagues.

85. There was no evidence that the Registrant has repeated similar behaviour. The Registrant has successfully completed his probationary period at YAS and the Registrant’s current manager has provided a positive testimonial. The Registrant also provided testimonials regarding his good character and his professionalism, including testimonials from those who know the Registrant through his volunteering role in the RAF Air Cadet organisation. These references indicate that the Registrant has the capability to take a leadership role. It also noted that RAF values such as respect, integrity, service and excellence are broadly comparable to those of a paramedic. It is disappointing that the Registrant did not transfer these values and skills to his shifts in April and June 2024. The Panel took this evidence into account and it gave weight to the positive testimonial provided by the Registrant’s current manager. However, given the level of insight demonstrated by the Registrant, the Panel was unable to exclude the risk of repetition that the Registrant would repeat similar behaviour.

86. If the Registrant were to repeat similar behaviour, the Panel considered that this would involve the following risk of harm to members of the public:

• psychological and/or emotional harm to the Registrant’s colleagues, particularly female colleagues;

• junior members of staff or students subject to similar behaviour would not seek help and guidance from the Registrant, placing a patient or patients at risk of harm;

• a breakdown in trust and confidence between colleagues, damaging teamwork and placing a patient or patients at risk of harm;

• damage to public confidence in the profession.

87. The Panel next considered the public component of fitness to practise. The Panel was of the clear view that a decision on current impairment is required. It involved emotional harm to Colleague A. She stated that Registrant’s behaviour made her feel very uncomfortable in her job and that she walked away from the job thinking that she didn’t want to do the job anymore. The Registrant’s behaviour also involved the risk of harm to patients, through the breakdown in trust and confidence between colleagues. The Registrant’s behaviour occurred in public places and might have been observed by members of the public. If the Registrant’s behaviour had been observed or overheard by a member of the public, they would have been shocked and their confidence in the Registrant would have been undermined. By its nature sexual misconduct has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that public trust and confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

88. The Registrant’s conduct also fell very far below the required standards of the profession and a finding of current impairment is required to declare and uphold proper standards.

89. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

90. Accordingly, the Panel found, on both the personal and public component, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

Decision on sanction

91. The Panel took account of the submissions made by Ms Patel on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Pakaty on behalf of the Registrant. Ms Patel’s submissions included reference to the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’. Mr Pakaty submitted that the appropriate sanction would be a lengthy Caution Order or a 2 - 3 month Suspension Order.

92. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’.

93. In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful that a sanction is not intended to be punitive. However, a sanction may be necessary in the public interest, and may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind that any sanction must be proportionate, that is, it must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

94. The Panel bore in mind that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. A panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and decide what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the public interest, which includes the maintenance of the public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

95. The Panel considered that the aggravating factors were:

• Conduct took place over 2 shifts;

• Emotional harm to Colleague A who was his junior;

• Risk of harm to patients in the event that Colleague A did not seek assistance from the Registrant and/or breakdown in teamworking.

96. The Panel carefully considered that the mitigating factors were:

• Developing insight;

• Early partial admissions and remorse in respect of admitted conduct.

97. In relation to the sexual and sexually motivated conduct, the Panel noted the guidance in the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’ at paragraph 76 - 77. Where such a finding is made the Panel is likely to impose a more serious sanction and if it does not it should provide clear reasoning.

98. The Panel considered that the sexual misconduct in this case was within the mid-range of the spectrum of seriousness. It involved multiple comments and two instances of touching and was therefore not at the low end of the spectrum. On the other hand it took the form of childish rather than predatory behaviour, and was not at the top end of the spectrum of seriousness.

99. The Panel considered the sanctions in ascending level of severity in order to ensure that its approach was proportionate.

100. The Panel decided that taking no action would not be appropriate. The Panel decided that due to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct a sanction was necessary.

101. The Panel considered the factors in the Sanctions Policy in relation to a Caution Order. It concluded that the issues in this case were not isolated, limited or relatively minor. The Registrant has not shown sufficient insight, and the Panel has found that there is a risk of repetition. A Caution Order would not restrict the Registrant’s ability to practise and would not be sufficient to protect the public or be sufficient to address the wider public interest.

102. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order was not sufficient or appropriate in the circumstances.

103. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel was unable to formulate conditions of practice which could address the risk that the Registrant would repeat sexual or sexually motivated conduct. The case involved sexual misconduct and conditions of practice are only suitable in such cases where the Registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation, and unlikely to be repeated. The Panel was also of the view that conditions of practice would not be sufficient to address the wider public interest. In reaching this conclusion it bore in mind the guidance in paragraphs 76 - 77 of the Sanctions Policy.

104. The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was not sufficient to protect the public and insufficient to address the wider public interest.

105. The Panel carefully considered whether a Suspension Order would be sufficient to protect the public and address the public interest concerns in this case.

106. The Panel referred to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The concerns represent serious breaches of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, the Registrant has demonstrated developing insight and there is evidence to suggest that he is likely to be able to address his failings. The Panel was unable to exclude the risk that the Registrant would repeat similar behaviour, but the Panel’s assessment was that the risk was sufficiently low that a Suspension Order was appropriate.

107. The Panel was of the view that a Suspension Order would provide a sufficient measure of public protection. It would prevent the Registrant practising as a Paramedic while subject to the Order and the Order would be reviewed by another panel. A Suspension Order would also be sufficient to uphold standards for members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel, by imposing a serious sanction would send a clear message to the Registrant and to other members of the profession that sexual and sexually motivated behaviour, even if it is childish, is entirely unacceptable for members of the profession.

108. The Panel considered the more restrictive option of a Striking Off Order, but it decided that it would be unnecessary and disproportionate. In reaching this conclusion the Panel had regard to the mitigating factors, the positive testimonials provided by the Registrant including the testimonial from his current manager, the absence of evidence of any repetition of similar behaviour, and the Registrant’s willingness to engage in remediation. The Panel also referred to its assessment of the relative gravity of the sexual misconduct in this case. In addition, the Panel was of the view that there was a public interest in retaining the skills and abilities of the Registrant within the profession, provided he is able to provide evidence to reassure a future panel that there will be no repetition of similar misconduct.

109. The Registrant is currently working as a Paramedic and the Panel acknowledged that the imposition of a Suspension Order is likely to have a negative impact on his financial and professional interests, but it decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest.

110. The Panel considered the appropriate and proportionate length of the Suspension Order. It considered that a six month period was appropriate. It was of the view that any shorter period of suspension, such as that proposed by Mr Pakaty, would be insufficient to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct. A six month period would also be sufficient time to enable the Registrant to reflect and to prepare evidence to present to a review panel.

111. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Suspension Order for a period of six months.

112. The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. This Panel cannot bind a future panel, but a future panel may be assisted by evidence of the Registrant’s reflections on the findings made by the panel together with evidence of how he has assimilated the learning from his reflections and training into his day-to-day interaction with colleagues with particular regard to the findings of sexual misconduct.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Mr Daniel Davis from the Register for a period of 6 months on the date this Order comes into effect

Interim Order

1. Ms Patel made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for up to eighteen months, to cover the appeal period before the Suspension Order becomes operative and the time that any appeal might take to be concluded. Mr Pakaty informed the Panel that the Registrant took a neutral position on the application.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’.

3. The Panel considered whether an order was necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or was in the Registrant’s own interests. It applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public.

4. The Panel considered whether to impose an Interim Order. In its findings on impairment the Panel concluded that there is a need to protect the public from the risk of harm. The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with those earlier findings and the imposition of a Suspension Order to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order was not necessary for the protection of the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

5. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s interests, but decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest. The Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on public protection and public interest grounds.

6. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to impose the Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. When the appeal period expires this Interim Order will come to an end unless there has been an application to appeal. If there is no appeal the substantive Suspension Order shall apply when the appeal period expires.

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 Daniel Davis