​​Stephen Chance-Hyett​

Preliminary Matters

Witness Key

1. Throughout this decision, the witnesses and other people mentioned will be referred to as follows:

• Colleague A, a registered Paramedic, who at the relevant time was a lead Paramedic for South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“SWAST”). Colleague A has produced a witness statement for the HCPC dated 9 November 2023 which includes exhibits from the SWAST investigation.
• MH, a registered Paramedic, who at the relevant time was employed as an operations manager for SWAST. MH has produced a witness statement for the HCPC dated 27 November 2023 which includes exhibits from the SWAST investigation.
• JG, a registered Paramedic, who at the relevant time was employed as head of emergency operations for SWAST. JG has produced a witness statement for the HCPC dated 12 January 2024, which includes exhibits from the SWAST disciplinary hearing.
• AM, who at the relevant time was a specialist paramedic. AM has not provided a witness statement, but their name is mentioned by both Colleague A, MH and the Registrant, within their evidence.

Special Counsel

2. The Panel was informed that in accordance with the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), the HCPC had appointed a legally qualified person to cross-examine Colleague A on behalf of the Registrant. The legally qualified person appointed was Ms Ani Yeghikian, Counsel, and she was permitted to join the hearing to hear the evidence of Colleague A, undertake cross-examination and re-examination following Panel questions.
3. At the outset of the hearing, it was established that the Registrant had not had an opportunity to speak to Ms Yeghikian to discuss his case. The Panel therefore allowed the Registrant sufficient time before starting the hearing to enable the Registrant to give instructions to Ms Yeghikian.
Privacy
4. The Panel had regard to the evidence in the bundle which amongst other matters includes reference to the Registrant’s health and personal life. The Panel therefore asked the parties if there was any application for parts of the hearing to be held in private.
5. The Registrant acknowledged that he had raised matters about his health in the written evidence but submitted that he did not require this to be kept private.
6. Ms Bernard-Stevenson informed the Panel that it was not anticipated that any of the HCPC evidence would require the Panel to sit in private. However, acknowledging that the Registrant is unrepresented, she submitted that the written evidence from the Registrant does make extensive reference to his private life. She submitted that it would be fair to hear any oral evidence making reference to those personal matters, including his health, to be heard in private.
7. The Panel heard and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor who referred to Rule 10 and to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’.
8. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, the Panel had regard to the protection of the private lives of the Registrant and the family members who are mentioned in his evidence. The Panel took into account that from the evidence in the bundle, the Registrant’s oral evidence is likely to comment on his private life and his health. The Panel concluded that it would be in the interests of justice and fairness to allow the Registrant to give evidence on those matters in private, allowing him the opportunity to be more open about such aspects of his life. The Panel concluded that such matters are likely to be discrete and are not inextricably linked to the Allegation. Therefore, the Panel decided that it is feasible to conduct the hearing in public and only hear the discrete matters of the Registrant’s health and private life in private.
9. When inviting submissions on the privacy application, the Panel had also enquired whether Colleague A’s evidence would be given in private and whether any application for special measures would be made. At the time the Panel raised this, Ms Bernard-Stevenson did not have instructions on the issue. It was subsequently confirmed by Ms Bernard-Stevenson that Colleague A was content to give evidence in public, and that no special measures were required.

Hearsay

10. The Registrant had understood that his ‘Disciplinary Appeal Hearing’ letter that he sent to his employer (SWAST), had been included in the HCPC final hearing bundle, but it had not.
11. The Registrant requested that the letter be provided to the Panel.
12. The HCPC was content for the Panel to have the letter subject to a redaction in relation to hearsay evidence.
13. The Registrant did not agree that the letter should be redacted.
14. The Registrant said that during his disciplinary process with the employer, he talked about the culture and the working environment in the ambulance station. The Registrant said that the culture was one in which staff spoke freely, away from the public eye, and that people could be open and honest and have conversations that in different circumstances might not be acceptable or appropriate.
15. The Registrant said that he had raised this during the disciplinary process to evidence that he was not unique and that other staff members in the same role as him have had similar types of conversations with other members of staff. Also, he said that he had been asked as part of the disciplinary about conversations that he sometimes overheard between the junior members of staff. The Registrant said that he was asked if he thought the conversations were inappropriate and if he had shut any of them down. The Registrant said that he admitted that, like his colleagues, he did not pay too much attention to what others were talking about and so did not shut any of them down. The Registrant said that during the investigation, he had spoken to his line manager, ‘SB’ about the conversations held.
16. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the paragraph in the letter relating to what ‘SB’ allegedly said to the Registrant is hearsay evidence, as ‘SB’ is not being called to give oral evidence. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the hearsay evidence is not directly relevant to a material fact, and it is peripheral. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant could give his own evidence as to the culture of the working environment if he considered it to be relevant, and that he could do this without the need to refer to what ‘SB’ allegedly said.
17. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that even if it were considered relevant, it would not be fair to admit it, as ‘SB’ is not being called as a witness and the HCPC will not get an opportunity to cross examine her. Ms Bernard-Stevenson informed the Panel that the Registrant was asked by the HCPC before the hearing if he intended to call any witnesses and he confirmed to the HCPC that he did not.
18. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to factors it should take into account in considering a hearsay application. The Legal Assessor referred to rule 10 of the Rules and to the principles derived from the cases of: Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin), and Mansaray v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2023] EWHC 730. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Evidence’ dated October 2024, paragraphs 31 – 36.
19. The Panel agreed with the submission of Ms Bernard-Stevenson that the hearsay evidence was not relevant to a material fact of the Allegation as it relates more generally to what the Registrant alleges is the culture within the working environment, as opposed to the specific allegations made against him by Colleague A, as set out in the Allegation.
20. Although the Panel decided that the evidence was not relevant, and should therefore not be admitted, it did take into account that the Registrant is unrepresented and ensured that it considered the general fairness of the admission, or otherwise of the evidence. The Panel had regard to the fact that 'SB’ is not being called as a witness and agreed that admitting the hearsay evidence, would create unfairness to the HCPC as they would not have an opportunity to challenge the evidence. The Panel took into account that the Registrant can give his own evidence on the culture and working environment and that there are other witnesses who may be able to comment on this if the Registrant wished them to do so. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there would not be any prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant if the hearsay evidence was not admitted.
21. The Panel dismissed the Registrant’s hearsay application and agreed with the HCPC that the ‘Disciplinary Appeal Hearing’ letter should be included as evidence but with the hearsay evidence of ‘SB’ redacted.

Admissions

22. In the Registrant’s response contained within the HCPTS Pre-Hearing Information Form, in response to the question, ‘Do you admit the facts alleged in the allegation above?’ he responded, ‘Some of them.’
23. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ dated October 2024, and considered the overall fairness of the proceedings, particularly noting that the Registrant is not legally represented.
24. The Panel noted that the ‘Admissions’ Practice Note sets outs a procedure before the hearing, which includes the HCPC liaising with the Registrant to ensure that any admissions are unequivocal. The Panel noted that the HCPC’s case summary does not make any reference to any admissions and does not set out whether the HCPC did liaise with the Registrant about his response.
25. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s written responses and considered that it was unclear as to whether he was fully admitting to any of the Particulars of the Allegation, or whether he understood that an admission related to the whole of any Particular of the Allegation (as drafted) rather than just a single element of a Particular. At the very least, the Panel noted that the admissions were partial, were equivocal and that the Registrant denied that his conduct was sexual in nature or sexually motivated.
26. In the circumstances the Panel did not consider his written document to amount to him making any formal admissions and asked the HCPC to present its case in full. The Panel informed the Registrant that it would take into account any partial admissions that he had made in writing or that he may make in oral evidence when undertaking its deliberations on facts.

Amendment of Allegation

27. Following all the live evidence but prior to the parties making closing submissions, the HCPC applied to amend the Allegation. Firstly, to replace the words in the stem of Particular 1, from ‘in and around August 2022’, with the words ‘on an unknown date’. Secondly, to add the words ‘through their clothes’ to Particular 1b, and thirdly to add the words ‘hip and/or’ to Particular 2a.
28. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that in relation to the amendments sought, these are minor in nature. They are amendments sought to clarify the nature of the HCPC case and to better reflect the evidence that has been heard. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that in the event that the Panel did grant this amendment application, it would not lead to any new evidence being presented.
29. The Registrant submitted that he was happy with what had been said in regards the proposed amendments. He submitted that he had no objection to the changes as they better reflect his case and the evidence that has been heard.
30. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that case law has made it abundantly clear that a Panel has a duty to play a more active role than a judge presiding over a criminal case, by ensuring that the case is properly presented, the charges adequately reflect the real mischief of the case, the relevant evidence is placed before it and the charges brought against a registrant must be sufficiently particularised in order that a panel is able to reach a fully informed decision. In terms of amendments, the Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that it has an inherent power to amend an Allegation providing that fairness to the parties is maintained and having regard to the HCPC’s overarching objective. The Legal Assessor referred to the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319.
31. The Panel kept in mind the overarching objectives of HCPC, and the importance of a fair balance being struck between the aims of public interest and fairness to the Registrant.
32. Having regard to fairness to the Registrant the Panel was satisfied that the amendments do not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation, and better reflect the evidence provided by the witnesses including the Registrant. The Panel considered that no new evidence was being introduced by the amendments.
33. In relation to the date that the alleged incidents occurred, all parties accept it was not August 2022. Colleague A believed it was June or July 2022, and the Registrant said that it was likely to be July 2022, as that is when they had shifts together. The Panel had no rota before it but noted that the initial complaint was made on 5 August 2022 by Colleague A, but with the context that it had taken place some weeks before that date. The Panel considered that removing the date would not be prejudicial to the Registrant and would maintain the public interest.
34. In relation to 1b, the evidence of Colleague A has always been that the Registrant touched her nipple over her shirt. Whilst the Registrant does not accept touching the nipple, it is fairer for the Particular to properly reflect what Colleague A alleges, which is that the touch was over the clothing.
35. In relation to 2a, the Registrant accepts he touched Colleague A’s hip. Colleague A alleges it was both hips. The minor amendment better reflects the Registrant’s evidence and ensures adequate public protection in line with the admission.
36. The Panel therefore accepted the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson and agreed that the Allegation should be amended.
37. For ease of reference, the amended Allegation is set out at the start of this decision, with strikethrough text to represent deletions and bold text to represent additions.

Background

38. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic with the HCPC.
39. At the material time, the Registrant was employed as an Operations Officer with South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“SWAST”) and was based at Staverton Ambulance Station. The Registrant had been employed by the NHS Ambulance Service since 2004 and had been in the position of Operations Officer since 2014.
40. On or around 5 August 2022, a concern was raised by Colleague A, a Lead Paramedic, employed by SWAST, and who at the relevant time was working at Staverton Ambulance Station, detailing allegations that are said to have taken place during interactions, at work, with the Registrant.
41. SWAST conducted an internal investigation into the allegations made by Colleague A. The investigation was conducted by ‘MH,’ an operations manager for SWAST, covering Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. MH conducted investigation meetings with Colleague A and with the Registrant.
42. The terms of reference MH used for the investigation were as follows:
• Inappropriate behaviour and sexual assault in the workplace whereby the following incidents are alleged to have taken place:
- Inappropriate conversation about body piercings and touching of the breast.
- Inappropriate conversations around sexual positions.
- Inappropriate touching/body contact in office.
43. Following the completion of the investigation report, SWAST held a disciplinary hearing with the Registrant on 23 November 2022. The Chair of the disciplinary panel was ‘JG,’ Head of Emergency Operations at SWAST.
44. On 29 July 2023, the HCPC received a referral form regarding the Registrant’s conduct, as referred to above.

Evidence

45. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:
(a) Colleague A
(b) JG
(c) MH
46. The HCPC also provided an evidence bundle containing the following statements and exhibits:
- Witness statement of Colleague A dated 9 November 2023, exhibiting the witness statement she prepared for SWAST dated 9 September 2022, an email to her from MH dated 26 August 2022, and the investigation meeting minutes dated 12 September 2022.
- Witness statement of MH dated 27 November 2023, exhibiting his investigation report (and various appendices) dated 10 October 2022.
- Witness statement of JG dated 12 January 2024, exhibiting the disciplinary meeting minutes dated 23 November 2022, and the disciplinary outcome letter dated 6 December 2022.
47. The live witnesses all gave evidence on oath or affirmation and adopted their witness statements and exhibits as their evidence in chief. They were asked supplemental questions by Ms Bernard-Stevenson. They were all tendered for cross-examination. Ms Yeghikian cross-examined Colleague A on the Registrant’s behalf.
48. The Registrant cross-examined JG but had no questions for MH. The HCPC was offered the opportunity to re-examine after the cross-examination. The Panel asked questions of clarification to each of the witnesses. The parties were offered the opportunity of re-examination following Panel questions.
49. The Registrant gave oral evidence on affirmation. The bundles and evidence the Panel received contained the following documents from the Registrant:
• The Registrant’s response to Investigating Committee Panel bundle, undated on the document, but dated 14 May 2024 on the index.
• The Registrant’s HCPTS Prehearing form, undated.
• The Disciplinary Appeal Hearing letter, which the Registrant sent to SWAST.
50. The Registrant was cross-examined by Ms Bernard-Stevenson and asked questions of clarification by the Panel.

17 January 2025

51. The Registrant’s evidence was concluded on 17 January 2025. Due to the time constraints, it was agreed by the parties, that closing submissions would not be made. The parties agreed that the hearing should be reconvened on 16 – 20 June 2025. The parties agreed that closing submissions followed by legal advice on facts, would be made at the outset of the hearing on 16 June 2025.
52. The Panel was mindful that it had heard evidence on facts and whilst it had not yet reached a decision, there had been some partial contextualised admissions from the Registrant. The Panel enquired with Ms Bernard-Stevenson whether any application for an interim order was to be made.
53. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that she did not intend to apply for an interim order.
54. The Registrant submitted that an interim order was not required and that he had been working in his current Paramedic role with no further incidences since 2022.
55. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to Article 31.
56. In reaching its decision about whether an interim order is necessary, the Panel took into account that although the Registrant has made some partial admissions about his conduct towards Colleague A, he strongly refutes the sexual nature and sexual motivation which is alleged. The Panel also took into account that it has yet to make any findings of fact on those matters.
57. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has continued in Paramedic practice since 2022 and no further issues have arisen, and he was of previous good character prior to this Allegation.
58. In terms of a risk assessment, the Panel was not satisfied that an interim order is necessary to protect the public. Given the high bar for an interim order to be made on public interest grounds alone, the Panel was also not satisfied that this threshold had been met.

Reconvened Hearing (June 2025)

59. The hearing was due to commence on 16 June 2025 but due to an unexpected change in circumstances of a Panel member, the hearing did not commence until 18 June 2025.
60. The Panel and the parties were provided with the transcripts of the January 2025 hearing.
61. Ms Bernard-Stevenson and the Registrant made closing submissions on 18 June 2025.

Legal Advice

62. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in respect of the approach to take in determining findings of facts. This included advice on the burden and standard of proof, the issues of credibility and reliability, as per the guidance in R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin). The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’, the Practice Note entitled ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ and the Practice Note on ‘Drafting decisions.’
63. In relation to the sexual elements of the Allegation, the Panel was referred to the definition of word “sexual” in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.78, and to the cases of Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 873 (Admin) and Haris v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 763. Advice was also given in relation to the Registrant being a person of good character who had no previous regulatory concerns raised against him.

Decision on Facts

Particular 1(a) Found Proved.

1. On an unknown date you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A, in that:
   a. you said to them “have you got your nipples pierced?” or words to that effect.

64. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant said to Colleague A, “have you got your nipples pierced” or words to that effect.
65. The HCPC relied on both the Registrant’s admission and Colleague A’s evidence to prove this Particular of the Allegation. In her HCPC witness statement dated 9 November 2023, Colleague A states that:
‘In around August 2022, [the Registrant] and I were both working a night shift together in the office. The office is quite big but the two desks that the officers sit at are quite close together, around five feet apart, alongside each other. We were the only two staff in the office.
During the shift, [the Registrant] asked me if he could ask me a question to which I said he could. [The Registrant] then asked me “have you got your nipples pierced?”. I asked why he asked that as it was a random question, and he said he had noticed my piercings through my shirt on a previous day. I was honest with [the Registrant] and said that I had got my nipples pierced.’
66. In oral evidence, Colleague A recalled that in relation to the question about her nipples, ‘it is not as though we had had any leading conversation up to that kind of particular topic so I was a bit taken aback by the type of question that was asked. It felt completely irrelevant to what we were doing or saying at the time.’ In relation to the Registrant’s tone of voice during this alleged conversation, Colleague A’s view was that the Registrant ‘sounded inquisitive’.
67. As per her witness statement, Colleague A gave oral evidence that she had asked the Registrant why he has asked her that question. She recalled that he responded along the lines of ‘Well, I saw it through your shirt’ the other day….so I just wanted to know.’ She stated that the Registrant had also asked her if she had any other piercings elsewhere. Colleague A said that she felt, ‘very uncomfortable, and embarrassed and awkward.’
68. In cross-examination it was put to Colleague A that the question about her nipple piercings, was not a random question, but one arising from a general conversation regarding cosmetic procedures. Colleague A stated that she did not recall that at all. However, she acknowledged that she could not say for certain that it did not happen.
69. In relation to the clothing (uniform) she was wearing, Colleague A said that, ‘It is the same uniform I have worn every day for years and not a single person has ever made a comment to me about it and, if it was that evident, then he would have noticed that actually I have two, one each side. So if my clothes were inappropriate and making both of them visible, I am sure he would have mentioned that he could see two.’
70. In his written and oral evidence, the Registrant accepted that he did ask Colleague A the question about her nipple piercing. In his written response to the HCPC he stated that, ‘it was during a general conversation regarding cosmetic procedures – continuing a conversation that [Colleague A] was having with the male officer that I took over from. We also chatted about tattoo’s, piercings and other bodily changes that seems to be common-place now. We chatted about how multiple visible tattoos and piercings are widely accepted whereas when I was younger and new to the ambulance service, they were seen as inappropriate. The conversation between us took place in an open office, occurred while we were performing our individual admin tasks with [Colleague A] being an equal participant. The conversation was relaxed and easily flowing. At some point during our shift the sun was shining very brightly into the corner of the office we were in, and reflecting on something metallic on [Colleague A’s] uniform. The gleam caused me to look over at her. I realised that I could see what appeared to be metallic bars through [Colleague A] work polo shirt as the material was quite thin; It dawned on me that they were probably piercing bars. I believed that [Colleague A] may not have realised they were visible and asked her if she did have piercings. This was a clumsy attempt on my part to let her know they were visible; judging by her response, it was clear that she had not realised this….Given the ease in which we always chatted, asking [Colleague A] if she had piercings, in attempt to point out that they were visible, seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I was trying to save her from embarrassment…’
71. In oral evidence, the Registrant said that it was not a random question as it was in the midst of a longer conversation about cosmetic procedures. He said that she had also told him that she had her tongue pierced but that she no longer had the piercing in. He maintained, as per his HCPC written response, that he had noticed the piercing bar through her shirt as the sunlight caught her uniform. In cross-examination, he acknowledged that as he had wanted to make her aware that the piercing was visible, then he could have phrased the question to her in a different way to alert her to this.
72. In response to Panel questions, about his intention in relation to the question, the Registrant stated that, ‘[he] had heard comments from certain male staff on station around other females who have had similar piercings and how there had been some overtly sexual comments about their piercings, and so when I realised that [Colleague A’s] were visible, I felt I was able, comfortable to make her aware of it. I asked the question whether she had her nipples pierced, because I did not want to – if she had not, I would not have asked the question…I wanted to confirm, first of all, that she had before I pointed it out because it could have been something completely different that I have seen.’
73. The Panel had regard to the other evidence which spoke to this Particular, including the documents produced as part of the SWAST investigation and disciplinary process, which were exhibited to MH and JG’s witness statements.
74. In Colleague A’s Incident Statement provided at the outset of the SWAST investigation, she states that the Registrant asked her ‘have you had your nipples pierced?’ and that she had replied with ‘why do you ask that? That’s a random question.’ She states that in reply, the Registrant then stated that he thought he had noticed it through her shirt the other day, and that he had gone on to ask if she had any piercings elsewhere.
75. In the notes of the investigation meeting, held on 14 September 2022, between MH and the Registrant, the Registrant was asked about the nipple piercing question. He stated that there had been a work-related conversation which went onto discussing cosmetic surgery, and he asked Colleague A if her nipples were pierced. He stated that she replied to ask why and that she queried whether he could see through her top. In response, he mentioned that yes, he had noticed that there was clearly a bar or piercing which was visible, and that they then went on to discussing piercings and tattoos.
76. The Panel noted that it is not disputed that the question was asked whilst Colleague A and the Registrant were on shift together, working alone in the office, and that the Registrant was one band more senior than Colleague A.
77. Colleague A’s evidence in relation to this Particular of Allegation has remained consistent, throughout the SWAST investigation, and subsequent HCPC investigation and hearing. The Registrant’s own evidence supports Colleagues A’s evidence, in that he accepts that he did ask her that question. Therefore, the Panel was confident in relying on the evidence of Colleague A and was satisfied that the Registrant said to Colleague A, “have you got your nipples pierced” or words to that effect.
78. The Panel next considered whether, in asking that question, the Registrant did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A.
79. The Panel had regard to the evidence relating to the working relationship between the Registrant and Colleague A.
80. In the SWAST investigation meeting, the Registrant is asked to describe the relationship he has with Colleague A. He stated, ‘It used to be brilliant, we were/are friends and would talk about everything, we always had a nice, relaxed relationship, lots of banter between us.’
81. In Colleague A’s SWAST investigation meeting, she was asked about her working relationship with the Registrant. She stated, ‘a really good relationship with Steve. I've known Steve since I started in 2012 and we've always got on very well and we've never had a crossword between us. He's never been inappropriate towards me, to the degree that within the allegation. He's always been a naturally flirtatious kind of guy, but in my own opinion, he crossed the line with me, which is why this has thrown me. But Yes, we've always gotten really well we don't socialise outside of work or speak outside of work. It's just when we do see each other at work, we do have a very good working relationship. We have a lot of fun and lot of banter together.’
82. Based on this evidence, the Panel found that both parties agree that at the time of the alleged events, they had a friendly working relationship and one that involved ‘banter’.
83. The Panel had regard to the context in which the question about the nipple piercing was asked. Whilst there was no dispute between the parties that the question was asked, the context leading up to the question is disputed.
84. Colleague A’s evidence is that the question was random, such that it had caused her to respond with asking ‘why’. She did not have the impression that the Registrant was trying to prevent her embarrassment by alerting her to the nipple piercing.
85. The Registrant’s evidence is that he asked the question during a wider conversation about cosmetic procedures and because he had noticed her piercing through her top, and that he wanted to alert her to this to save her from embarrassment.
86. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A in relation to the wider context of the conversation. It is inherently plausible that Colleague A’s response would have been to ask why, if such a question came out of blue, and did not arise during a conversation talking about piercings. Colleague A has maintained her evidence throughout that it was a random question and recalls the Registrant’s tone as being inquisitive. In contrast, the Registrant has not been consistent in his assertion that he was asking this question to save Colleague A from embarrassment. He did not suggest this was the reason when he was interviewed by MH on 14 September 2022, nor did he imply this in the statement he wrote for SWAST on 16 September 2022. In fact, he states that the conversation, ‘was purely out of curiosity driven by my intrigue at people’s desire for body art and body decoration and how it is becoming more accepted in society.’
87. The Panel therefore rejected the Registrant’s evidence that he had asked this question to save Colleague A from embarrassment.
88. The Panel took into account that the Registrant was senior to Colleague A both in age and job role. The Panel kept in mind it’s finding that the parties shared a friendly work relationship, but nonetheless, the question about her nipple piercing made Colleague A feel ‘very uncomfortable, embarrassed and awkward’.
89. The Panel noted in oral evidence and closing submissions, the Registrant accepted that with the benefit of hindsight he did fail to maintain professional boundaries by asking the question.
90. The Panel concluded that by asking a junior female colleague an intrusive question about an intimate body part, the Registrant was not maintaining appropriate professional boundaries. He was not respecting Colleague A’s privacy and the Panel having rejected his explanation about saving her from embarrassment, found that there was no justified reason for him asking this question.
91. The Panel found proved that on an unknown date the Registrant did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A, in that he said to them “have you got your nipples pierced?” or words to that effect.

Particular 1(b) Found Proved.

1. On an unknown date you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A, in that:
b. You touched their nipple through their clothes.

92. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant touched Colleague A’s nipple through their clothes.
93. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague A. In her HCPC witness statement, Colleague A’s evidence about this Particular of the Allegation is that it follows the Registrant asking her about whether she had her nipples pierced. Colleague A’s evidence states that:
‘[The Registrant] then asked me whether I had any piercings elsewhere, to which I said no.
[The Registrant] then wheeled his chair over to my desk and sat very close to me with, his face very close to my chest and pointed at my left nipple and asked if that was where the piercing was. [The Registrant] then poked my nipple where he thought the ball of the piercing bar was. I said yes and told him to stop but he kept his finger there. I said “are you quite finished?”. His finger was there for what felt like four to five minutes.’
94. In her oral evidence, Colleague A said that the Registrant had touched her nipple, over her clothing. She stated that the Registrant had proceeded to lean forward with his face very close to her chest and was pointing towards her nipple, asking her exactly where it was. Colleague A stated that contact with her nipple was made, she said that she ‘looked down to see where he was pointing and I just said “Yes” and then he started touching where he thought the bar – I believe he thought was the bar of my piercing, he started touching it like that, and he said “Is that it?”’. Colleague A thought that the touching lasted maybe ten seconds and that she had said to him said ‘Yes, that’s it. Are you quite finished?’.
95. In response to Panel questions, Colleague A said that it was only her right nipple which the Registrant touched.
96. The Registrant’s written response to the HCPC states that he did not touch Colleague A’s nipple. In oral evidence, the Registrant stated that he asked the question about the nipple, then pointed, and then sat back in his chair. He said that he had withdrawn his pointing finger immediately and held the pointing for no longer than one second.
97. In cross-examination, the Registrant acknowledged that he had said in the SWAST investigation that he might have touched the nipple but that if he did it was only briefly and accidentally. The Registrant said that he had said this because he had started to doubt himself and that there was lots going round his head at that time. He said that since then he has reflected and is certain that he did not touch Colleague A’s nipple.
98. In closing submissions, the Registrant said that the initial stages of the SWAST investigation were difficult and stressful and that he was challenged and questioned repeatedly about the touching, hence him starting to doubt himself. However, he is certain that he did not touch the nipple.
99. The Panel had regard to the other evidence which spoke to this Particular, including the documents produced as part of the SWAST investigation and disciplinary process, which were exhibited to MH and JG’s statements.
100. Colleague A’s SWAST statement sets out that the Registrant had touched her nipple and felt where he thought the ball of the bar was. In the investigation meeting, Colleague A gave more detail and describes the Registrant ‘poking’ at her nipple and that he ‘was touching and feeling for the piercing’. She further states that, ‘it wasn't just a little poke either, it was prolonged and he was moving his finger around a little bit. And so, it wasn't like a little brush even though that's still not right. It was prolonged which made it creepier.’
101. In his SWAST investigation meeting, the Registrant was asked whether there was any physical contact. He responded stating, ‘No, but if there was any touching of her boob, it was unintentional.’
102. In the Registrant’s statement to SWAST, provided one day after his investigation meeting, he states that he ‘cannot recall my finger tip making contact with Colleague A’s chest or clothing; if it did, it was completely unintentional - it was a single movement of pointing my finger in her direction and withdrawing it.’
103. In the notes of the SWAST Disciplinary meeting on 23 November 2022, it states that the Registrant said, ‘touching her nipple – it was not intentional it was accidental and it was for a second, I think she put in that I played around with it that did not happen.’
104. The Panel recognised that on the evidence before it, whether or not the Registrant touched Colleague A’s nipple comes down to the word of one person (the Registrant) against another (Colleague A).
105. To enable it to reach a decision on whether the HCPC had discharged its burden of proof, the Panel had regard to the reliability of the evidence of the Registrant and Colleague A. In doing so the Panel had close regard to the most contemporaneous documents it had available to it, those being the SWAST documentation. The Panel took into account that SWAST documentation was created as parts of its formal investigation which took place very shortly after the alleged events are said to have occurred. This is in contrast to the HCPC statements which were given at least one year after the events.
106. In assessing Colleague A’s credibility, the Panel considered the consistency of her evidence, and the cogency of her evidence based on the plausibility of the information she gave. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that there are some inconsistencies in her evidence, relating to the length of time for which the Registrant allegedly touched the nipple and which nipple it was, the Panel nonetheless found Colleague A’s evidence to be credible. The Panel acknowledged that it is commonplace for there to be inconsistency and confusion in some of the detail given the length of time which has passed since the alleged events occurred.
107. In her initial complaint to SWAST, Colleague A said the Registrant had poked her nipple and she has consistently maintained that evidence. The Panel took into account that in her oral evidence and questioning, she was readily willing to concede that the touching had not been for as long as stated in her witness statement, but that it is difficult to judge time in circumstance such as that. She said it had ‘felt like’ that length of time rather than that it was that length of time.
108. In contrast, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s oral evidence in relation to this Particular to be credible or reliable. He was not consistent with his early accounts given to the SWAST investigation in that he was now categorically denying the touching when nearer to the time of the events he had acknowledged that it could have happened. Whilst the Registrant said that this was because he felt pressured during the SWAST investigation, the Panel did not find this to be credible and found that the SWAST evidence undermines his assertion.
109. The initial SWAST investigation meeting notes state that a ‘note taker’ and a ‘welfare officer’ were present, along with the Registrant and MH. The notes of the meeting state that whilst not verbatim, they are ‘an accurate reflection of dialogue and action throughout the hearing’. The Panel considered the questions asked by MH to be open questions designed to get the Registrant’s version of what happened. There was no suggestion from the meeting notes that the Registrant was persistently asked if he touched Colleague A. There is simply one reference as to whether there was any physical contact, to which the Registrant replied to say ‘No, but if there was any touching of her boob, it was unintentional.’ The Panel was confident that the notes were a true reflection of the meeting and could be relied upon, taking into account that there was no challenge from the Registrant about the accuracy of them.
110. The Panel noted that the day after the SWAST investigation meeting, the Registrant had provided a written statement, as he was asked to do so at the end of the meeting. The Panel considered this was the Registrant’s opportunity to set out clearly his position in relation to what had been alleged against him. The Panel took into account that rather than categorically denying what is a very serious allegation made against him, he sets out a vague response that he ‘cannot recall my finger tip making contact with Colleague A’s chest or clothing; if it did, it was completely unintentional.’
111. Finally, the notes of the Disciplinary hearing, show that he admitted touching Colleague A’s nipple. A minute taker was present to take the minutes, and the Registrant was accompanied in the hearing by a Union Representative. Whilst the Registrant did challenge the minutes it was in relation to the chronology as opposed to the content.
112. In conclusion, the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A, and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did touch Colleague A’s nipple through their clothes.
113. The Panel next considered whether in touching the nipple, the Registrant did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A.
114. The Panel concluded that in touching Colleague A’s nipple, the Registrant had subjected her to unsolicited and non-consensual touching. The touch was to an intimate area of Colleague A’s body and had made her feel very uncomfortable. It was in the Panel’s view a clear failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Particular 1(c) found Proved.

1. On an unknown date you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A, in that
   c. You kept your finger close to their nipple through their clothes.

115. The HCPC relied on the same evidence as that set out in relation to 1(b) as it was said to be part of the same conduct as the nipple touching.
116. The Registrant’s written evidence to the HCPC was that he did not keep his finger close to Colleague A’s nipple through her clothes. He said that he pointed then immediately withdrew his hand.
117. In his oral evidence he did acknowledge that during the nipple conversation, he did ‘move slightly closer’ but that he was still at arm’s length from Colleague A. He said that he pointed with his arms outstretched. He acknowledged in answering a question from the Panel that he could have been in touching distance if he leaned forward. He said that pointing was a knee-jerk reaction in response to Colleague A turning towards him and pushing her chest forward.
118. Colleague A has been consistent that the Registrant touched her nipple and kept his finger close. For the reasons set out at 1(b), the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A as to how this situation occurred. By his own admission, the Registrant did point his finger close to Colleague A’s nipple. Whilst he states that he then withdrew it, the Panel considered that this nonetheless constituted having kept his finger close to Colleague A’s nipple.
119. The Panel considered that in keeping his finger close to Colleague A’s nipple, the Registrant had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. In the context of a workplace setting, and discussion about her nipple piercings, holding his finger close to a Colleague’s intimate body part, albeit through her clothing, was a breach of professional boundaries.

Particular 1(d) Found Proved

1. On an unknown date you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A, in that
   d. You said to them ‘I’ll never forget the time you said you can’t understand why women love anal sex’ or words to that effect.

120. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague A. In the witness statement of Colleague A, she states, ‘…when we were at our computers, Steve turned to me and said, ‘I’ll never forget the time you said you can’t understand why women love anal sex.’ I said responded that I did not know what he was talking about. Steve responded that he was sure I did. I asked him when and Steve said he could not remember when. I responded that I was pretty sure I did not say this and it was not the kind of thing I would say. This was not related to any conversation that we were having at the time. Anal sex is not something I have ever discussed in the workplace and I am not aware of any colleagues ever discussing it in the workplace.’
121. The Registrant’s written evidence to the HCPC was that the words in the Particular of the Allegation have been misconstrued. The Registrant states that:
‘Earlier in the year, Colleague A had come out of the station with her female crew partner while I was stood outside. They were both laughing loudly and so I asked what they were laughing about. Colleague A said they had been talking about sex. She then immediately said “I can’t understand why blokes want to go round the back when there’s a perfectly good hole at the front’. I was not surprised that she said this but was taken aback as I wasn’t expecting her to say it, and so also found it amusing. During our shift, something she said or the way she said it, involuntarily triggered the memory of the conversation as mentioned above. Again, this made me laugh and Colleague A asked what I was laughing about. I then reminded her about what she had said. I Me reminding Colleague A about it was absolutely not meant in a sexual way or an attempt to create a conversation about sex or sexual positions whatsoever; neither was I expecting it to be seen that way.’
122. In oral evidence the Registrant maintained that the words he said to Colleague A were, ‘You were talking about sex with your female crewmate and you said you can’t understand why blokes want to go round the back when there’s a perfectly good hole round the front.’
123. The Panel noted that Colleague A disputes that she ever had this conversation with a female crewmate. However, in order to find this Particular of the Allegation proved the Panel does not need to resolve that element. The Panel’s job is to decide whether on balance the Registrant said to Colleague A ‘I’ll never forget the time you said you can’t understand why women love anal sex’ or words to that effect.’
124. Whilst the Registrant disputes that they are the exact words he said, he does accept that he said words about sex and ‘holes’ but that he has been misquoted.
125. The Panel concluded that whether it was a misquote or not, the Particular includes the phrase ‘or words to the effect’. That means the Panel does not have to establish that the exact words were said. The Panel was satisfied that the words set out in Particular 1(d) are words to the effect that the Registrant admits he said. The words relate to a conversation, initiated by the Registrant, relating to sex, and a person’s preference of anal or vaginal sex.
126. The Panel considered that in saying these words to Colleague A, the Registrant had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. In the context of a workplace setting, having an unsolicited conversation about anal sex, with a junior female colleague, without any clinical justification, was a breach of professional boundaries. By his own admission, in oral evidence, the Registrant accepted that it was not appropriate, given the nature of the subject, and that he accepts that now.

Particular 2 (a) Found Proved.

2. On an unknown date, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A in that:
a. You touched their hip and/or hips one or more times.

127. It is not disputed between the parties that whilst on shift together, in close time proximity to the events in relation to Particular 1, the Registrant took a telephone call from AM regarding an IT issue. It is not disputed that the Registrant was unable to assist and that Colleague A offered to help by speaking to AM on the same telephone. It is not disputed that during the alleged incident, AM made some enquiries with the parties about what was happening.
128. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague A to support this Particular of the Allegation. In her witness statement to the HCPC, Colleague A states, ‘I had to lean over Steve’s desk to use the mouse. Steve was still sat at the desk and did not move his chair out of the way for me. During the phone call, Steve kept grabbing my hips and trying to drag me down onto his lap. Steve was laughing and smiling while he was doing this. I kept saying to Steve to stop it. I was trying to focus on the call. Eventually I got very annoyed at Steve and shouted at him to stop. [AM] heard this and asked if I was okay. I told [AM] that Steve was messing around. Steve then stopped and turned his chair slightly towards me. Steve was still giggling. I got off the phone with [AM] as quickly as I could and went back to my desk. Steve did not say anything after that. This incident made me feel extremely uncomfortable.’
129. Colleague A maintained this version of the events during her oral evidence.
130. In the Registrant’s HCPC written response he describes the alleged incident as follows:
‘She stood in a small space between a wall and my chair to help this person; I believe he was now on loudspeaker. She was stood within my personal space but seemed comfortable being there, neither did I think anything of it; that said, she was very close to me and her left hip was brushing against my right shoulder. I leaned over to my left to give her more space and offered to move so that she could use my chair several times and she declined my offer. The conversation between the three of us was light-hearted and fun. Caught up in this moment, I touched [Colleague A’s] right hip briefly with my right hand and invited her to sit on my lap. The pressure applied to her hip was very light and the whole incident lasted a few seconds; I had absolutely no intention of her sitting on my lap whatsoever. She seemed to treat my action with the same humour and told me to ‘behave’. The other person heard this and asked what I did to which [Colleague A] said ‘he’s being naughty’ or words to that effect. The other person laughed and said ‘stop being naughty Steve’. I recall that I laughed too and said something like ‘sorry dad’ and carried on with my work with occasional interjections into the conversation that continued, unchanged. In general, the atmosphere between the three of us was jovial and very happy and remained that way during the length of the phone call.’
131. The Panel had regard to the SWAST documentation, noting that both parties subsequent evidence was consistent with what they said during the SWAST investigation.
132. The Panel recognised that on the evidence before it, whether or not the Registrant touched Colleague A’s hip/hips one or more times comes down to the word of one person (the Registrant) against another (Colleague A).
133. The Registrant accepts that he touched Colleague A’s hip on one occasion. However, the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague A that the Registrant touched both her hips and on more than one occasion during this incident.
134. Although the Panel had no evidence from AM, both parties agree that he had commented on the situation by asking what was happening. The Panel considered that it was entirely plausible that Colleague A had reacted by asking the Registrant to stop if he was touching both hips on more than one occasion, rather than if he had lightly touched one of her hips on one occasion. Further, if it is also inherently probable that a light touch on one hip on one occasion would not have generated a response which had resulted in AM asking what was happening. The intervention, by AM, albeit a light-hearted one, is much more plausible in the context of this being a persistent touching rather than a single touch to a single hip. It is also inherently probable given the nature of the relationship which both parties describe as including ‘banter’ that the Registrant was grabbing Colleague A’s hips.
135. Having found that the Registrant touched Colleague A’s hips more than one time, the Panel next considered whether doing so meant that he had not maintained appropriate professional boundaries.
136. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had subjected Colleague A to unsolicited and non-consensual touching. This touching had continued to the point where Colleague A had asked him to stop as she felt uncomfortable. The touching was of her hips which the Panel considered were not a sexual body part, but nonetheless an intimate area of the body. In conclusion the Panel concluded that in acting as he did, the Registrant had not maintained appropriate professional boundaries.

Particular 2(b) Found Proved.

2. On an unknown date, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A in that:
b. You attempted to pull them by their hips to sit on your lap.

137. The HCPC relied on the same evidence as that set out in relation to 2(a) as it was said to be part of the same conduct as the hip touching.
138. The Panel took into account its decision that the Registrant had touched both of Colleague A’s hips. By his own admission the Registrant had invited her to sit on his lap. For the same reasons as set out in 2(a), the Panel concluded that it was inherently probable that the Registrant had attempted to pull Colleague A to sit on his lap.
139. The Panel next considered whether in doing so, the Registrant had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The Panel took into account that a successful attempt to pull Colleague A onto his lap would have resulted in her, a younger and junior colleague, sitting on the Registrant’s upper thigh and crotch area. This was unsolicited and nonconsensual, and the Panel concluded that it was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

Particular 3 Found Proved.

3. Your conduct in relation to particulars 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a and/or 2b was sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated.

140. The Panel first considered whether the conduct was sexual in nature, noting that it did not need to make a finding on the Registrant’s state of mind, only whether the conduct itself was sexual in nature.
141. The Registrant denies that his conduct was sexual in nature.
142. In relation to 1a,1b and 1c, the Panel noted that this occurred as part of one incident. The nipple conversation was immediately followed by the touching of the nipple and keeping the finger close to it.
143. The Panel decided that the conversation about nipple piercing could be sexual, because it is referring to a sexual body part, and because of the circumstances in this case, is sexual. The Panel had in mind its rejection of the Registrant’s evidence that this conversation was held to prevent Colleague A from embarrassment. The Panel envisaged there could be circumstances in which a colleague could be discreetly told that an intimate piercing was visible under clothing in a non-sexual way. However, this was not the case here. The Registrant initiated a conversation about nipple piercing and was inquisitive about it, continuing the conversation to talk about what other piercing Colleague A might have.
144. In relation to keeping his finger close and touching the nipple, the Panel considered this was an act which whatever the circumstances is sexual. It is a deliberate action in touching and keeping the finger near Colleague A’s nipple, in circumstances where there was no clinical justification and no consent.
145. In relation to 1d, the Panel considered that discussing sex, including reference to anal sex, because of its nature may be sexual and because of the circumstances is sexual. The Panel took into account that on both party’s accounts there was no lead up to this conversation. It was not work related and the Panel determined that it was clearly designed to illicit a response from Colleague A in relation to a discussion about sex.
146. In relation to 2a and 2b, the Panel noted that these occurred as part of one incident.
147. The Panel considered that touching Colleague A’s hips on more than one time and attempting to pull her by her hips to sit on the Registrant’s lap is an act, which whatever the circumstances, is sexual. This involved deliberate nonconsensual touching, which would have resulted in Colleague A sitting on or adjacent to the Registrant’s crotch, which the Panel considered is a sexual area of the body.
148. The Panel concluded that all the conduct in the Allegation was sexual in nature.
149. The Panel next considered whether the conduct was sexually motivated.
150. The Panel took into account the guidance in the Basson and Haris cases. It was aware that it must decide whether the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of future sexual relationship.
151. It was mindful that it is assessing the Registrant’s state of mind, which is something that the Panel may find inferentially and by deduction from his conduct and the surrounding evidence on the balance of probabilities.
152. The Panel found that by his own admission, the relationship between him and Colleague A was friendly, involved banter, and that he admits that he did initiate the conversations about her nipples, the anal sex comment, and that he did invite her to sit on his lap.
153. The Panel considered 1a - 1c together as it was part of the same incident. It concluded that talking about nipple piercings, touching Colleague A’s nipple and holding his finger close to the nipple is all overtly sexual conduct. It was not appropriate in the context of a work environment, there was no justification for it, and it was not consensual. Whilst the Registrant explained that this was done to prevent Colleague A from embarrassment, for the reasons already set out in this decision, the Panel did not find that plausible. In the absence of any other innocent explanation, the Panel considered that the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification.
154. In relation to 1d, the Panel also considered that this was overtly sexual in nature, as it was a discussion initiated by the Registrant in relation to anal sex. The Registrant states that this was said because it was an involuntary memory of something we he states he had heard Colleague A say to another colleague in the past. The Panel considered that even if Colleague A had said something to another colleague in the past, there was no justification or plausible explanation for why the Registrant was repeating this. The Panel considered that in the context of the friendly relationship the Registrant describes with Colleague A, he discussed anal sex, a risqué conversation, to illicit a response from her, and did so in pursuit of sexual gratification.
155. In relation to 2a and 2b, the Panel considered these together as they are part of the same incident.
156. The Panel concluded that touching Colleague A’s hips in a confined space and trying to pull her onto his lap was overtly sexual in nature. There was no clinical justification for it, and Colleague A did not consent to it. Whilst the Registrant states it was just a bit of a laugh; the Panel did not consider this to be the case. Within the context of their friendly relationship, the Panel considered that the Registrant was behaving like this to flirt with Colleague A and derive sexual gratification from it.
157. The Panel was not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Registrant’s conduct was done in pursuit of a sexual relationship. The Panel heard evidence that both the Registrant and Colleague A were in relationships at the time. The Panel noted the evidence from both the Registrant and Colleague A that they had a good working relationship that involved ‘banter’. Colleague A gave evidence that in relation to the behaviours alleged the Registrant had ’crossed the line’. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to unprofessional conduct that breached professional boundaries and was done for sexual gratification but was not done in pursuit of a future sexual relationship
158. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct at Particular’s 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, and 2b (as found proved), was sexually motivated.

Grounds

159. The hearing reconvened on 3 November 2025. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the facts found proved amount to serious professional misconduct.
160. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC 2001 1 AC 311.
161. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that subjecting a colleague to non-consensual touching of intimate areas in the workplace, falls far below the standard expected of a registered Paramedic. Moreover, this conduct is exacerbated by the fact that this incident of inappropriate behaviour was not an isolated incident. Engaging in sexualised conversation with a colleague in the workplace is inappropriate.
162. Ms Bernard-Stevenson reminded the Panel that Colleague A had indicated in her evidence that the sexualised questions that the Registrant put to her made her feel ‘awkward’ and ‘uncomfortable.’
163. Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to consider the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics 2016 (“the Standards”) as a whole, and submitted that the Registrant has breached the following standards: -
i. Standard 2.1- You must be polite and considerate.
ii. Standard 2.5- You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate for the benefit of service users and carers.
iii. Standard 9.1- You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
164. The Registrant provided the Panel with four testimonials, and referred the Panel to a further two testimonials which were already provided within the main hearing bundle. The majority of the testimonials were made for the SWAST investigation and came from current and previous professional colleagues including the Registrant’s line manager. The Registrant made submissions on misconduct and spoke about the culture within the workplace. He acknowledged that his actions had been wrong and submitted that it had never been his intention to cause hurt or distress to his colleague.
165. In relation to misconduct, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (no.2) [2000] AC 311 and to the Standards. The Legal Assessor advised that there was no settled definition of misconduct, and it was for the Panel to say in the circumstances of the case whether the behaviour, crossed the threshold properly to be categorised as misconduct. The Panel could approach the question by deciding whether an act or omission on the part of the Registrant represented a serious falling short of the standards to be expected of a HCPC registrant. However, it is important to note that not every omission or wrongdoing necessarily constitutes misconduct.

Panel Decision

166. The Panel at all times kept in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public which includes protecting service users, promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
167. The Panel took into account the Standards. The Panel bore in mind that a departure from the Standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct.
168. Based on all the information before it, the Panel found the Registrant’s behaviour in relation to the facts did amount to serious professional misconduct.
169. The Panel took into account that the actions of the Registrant were not related to his Paramedic competence, but they did take place within his place of work, whilst on shift in the office with Colleague A. His actions were sexually motivated and involved a clear failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A on a number of occasions. The Panel had careful regard to the Standards and did not consider that 2.1 and 2.5 were engaged in the circumstances of this case as they related to service users. The Panel did find that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the following Standards:
6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to … colleagues as far as possible.
6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a … 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.
170. Colleague A was a younger female junior colleague, in contrast to the Registrant who was older, had more Paramedic experience, and held a senior position. The Registrant did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A. He asked her inappropriate questions, made inappropriate comments, and touched her, without her consent on a number of occasions. All of this conduct was sexual in nature and sexually motivated. In behaving in this way, the Registrant did not keep his relationship with Colleague A professional, and she describes having been made to feel very uncomfortable, embarrassed and awkward by the Registrants conduct.
171. In acting as he did, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant caused Colleague A emotional harm and his actions were fundamentally inconsistent with what is expected of a registered Paramedic, falling far below the Standards expected.
172. For the above reasons, the Panel concluded that the conduct found proved individually and collectively does amount to serious professional misconduct

Impairment

173. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components.
174. In relation to the personal component, Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the Registrant’s evidence, reminding the Panel that during the Registrant’s oral evidence he made some (albeit limited) concessions regarding the case against him. In addition to this, she submitted that the Registrant has expressed remorse for some of his conduct and has expressed an intention to use what he has learned from the incident to inform his future behaviour.
175. Ms Bernard-Stevenson drew the Panel’s attention to fact that the Registrant remains working as a Paramedic for SWAST and he has described himself as thriving in his current role. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that whilst there are some character references regarding his employment, these should carry limited weight as they do not clearly set out that they are aware of the Allegation the Registrant faced, and which has been found proved. In relation to the courses and reading which the Registrant states he has undertaken, Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that no independent evidence has been provided to support this.
176. In relation to the public component, Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that this fitness to practise case has arisen as a result of a singular complaint, in an otherwise unblemished career. Notwithstanding this, the Particulars of the Allegation which have been proven are very serious. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that although the Registrant has demonstrated some insight, he has not demonstrated that he has participated in any remedial courses such as professional boundaries courses. She submitted that as a result, it is the view of the HCPC that the Registrant has been unable to illustrate to the Panel that he has learned how to implement and maintain professional boundaries. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel may be of the view that as a result of this, the Registrant poses a greater risk to future colleagues (and/or service users.). She submitted that owing to the serious nature of the conduct and the failure to demonstrate adequate remediation, the Panel may be of the view that failing to make a finding that the Registrant is impaired may amount to a failure to uphold professional standards. The Panel may equally be of the view, that this may lead to a reduction in public confidence.
177. The Panel heard submissions from the Registrant. The Registrant did not give evidence at this stage but had given evidence at the ‘Facts stage’ which was relevant to misconduct and impairment. In his submissions the Registrant reiterated some of his oral evidence. In summary the Registrant submitted:
• He accepts that his actions were wrong.
• He never intended to cause Colleague A any harm or distress and never intended to humiliate her.
• He was horrified when he was told that his conduct was being deemed as sexual in nature, this was never his intention.
• He wanted to apologise to Colleague A as soon as he was made aware of the complaint by SWAST. However, he was not allowed to speak to Colleague A, even though he had considered them to be friends.
• He descried the culture within the workplace as inappropriate on occasion. He has reflected on this now, seeing that when you are immersed in it, it is hard to differentiate, because the station is considered to be a ‘safe space’. However, he now recognised this culture should not be the norm, and it is not right to engage in inappropriate conduct, even when away from the forward-facing patient role.
• Since this incident occurred, he has stood back and looked at his own behaviours and the behaviour of others. He wants to champion improvement in the culture to protect younger and new staff who are coming into the profession. He has challenged colleagues and shown his distaste if they conduct themselves in a way he deems to be inappropriate, and to fall outside of the conduct defined by the Standards.
• He deeply regrets his actions and has learnt from them and he states he will never repeat them.
• He has read various articles including one in the British Medical Journal about sexual motivation in the workplace. This has taught him things that he was not previously aware of. He learnt that sometimes perpetrators of abuse get away with things due to a fear, by the complainant, of reporting. He has witnessed this within his own station when a colleague told him that they were harassed but when it was reported the manager had asked what they had done to encourage it.
• He has undertaken a Paramedic refresher course at SWAST. He has completed training on the ‘sexual safety at work charter’ a number of times. He has been vocal in his support of this charter and in sharing his learning with others.
• He remains working as a Paramedic for SWAST as part of a crewed ambulance team. This means he is with at least one other colleague on the ambulance, sometimes two colleagues if there is a trainee or observer. As part of his role, he works with colleagues of different ages, and sexes, and from different stations.
• In 2023 and 2024, he mentored two different student Paramedics. He supported them and they were thankful for his support. He has provided a character reference from his most recent student which attests to his professionalism.
• He recognises that the public need to have confidence in Paramedics and this means that a professional stance should be maintained even outside of the public eye.
178. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to take into account that it should have regard to both the personal and public components and keep in mind the wider public interest. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ dated August 2025, and the Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ dated September 2024. The Panel was referred to the cases of, CHRE v (1) NMC & (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 [Admin], Cheatle v GMC (2009) EWHC 645 (Admin), and PSA v HCPC & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319.

Panel Decision

179. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective. The Panel had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on impairment and professional boundaries.
180. In relation to the personal component, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note (Impairment), the Panel considered whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.
181. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as sexual motivation, may be harder to remediate. However, the Panel did think that the Registrant’s sexually motivated conduct could be remediated. Whilst the Panel recognised that a finding of sexually motivated behaviour is always considered as serious, it took into account that the misconduct in this case relates to a few occasions with one colleague, with whom the Registrant considered he had a close and trusted relationship. The incidents occurred during a short space of time within an otherwise lengthy and unblemished career within the ambulance service. There was no evidence before the Panel to indicate that the Registrant’s conduct was indicative of a deep-seated attitudinal problem. The Panel considered that in order to remediate the Registrant would need to show that he developed insight, to include an understanding of how and why the conduct occurred. This would allow the Registrant to demonstrate what steps he would take and/or had taken to avoid a repetition of the sexually motivated misconduct recurring.
182. The Panel next had regard to whether the Registrant’s sexually motived misconduct has been remedied. The Panel took into account the documentary evidence provided by the Registrant in advance of the hearing, which contained explanations and reflections about the case. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s oral evidence given at ‘Facts stage’ and testimonials provided from various colleagues.
183. The Panel kept in mind that the Registrant was of previous good character and has worked as a Paramedic since the incidents in or around Summer 2022 with no further issues raised. These incidents have been a one-off in his career and appear out of character for him. The Panel noted that the Registrant admitted crossing professional boundaries from the outset, conduct which he wholeheartedly regrets. Even within the SWAST disciplinary, he acknowledged that he had not acted in an appropriate manner, especially as it was with a junior staff member.
184. The Panel was confident that the Registrant now fully understood how and why his conduct occurred. Whilst Colleague A’s evidence was that the Registrant crossed the line, she accepted that they did have a good work relationship and that there was banter between them. The Registrant described how lines can become blurred, in the station amongst colleagues who get on well, and who are good work friends. The Registrant described that Paramedics see some really horrible things on the front line and that on station it is generally understood that crews will talk more bluntly. The blunt and jovial chat is a way of helping decompress and relax between call outs. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had crossed the line and that he had lost sight of what was appropriate within the context of what he considered to be a ‘safe space’ with a work friend.
185. The Panel found that the Registrant was genuinely remorseful for the upset he has caused Colleague A, and that remorse was present at the outset of the SWAST investigation and has remained consistent.
186. The Panel found that the Registrant does have insight into his misconduct, the impact this had on Colleague A, and the wider profession. The Panel found the Registrant’s oral reflections to be insightful and considered that he had grappled with the root cause of his conduct and what triggered it and more importantly how he will avoid a repetition of such conduct. In his oral evidence the Registrant described conversations he had held with his daughters about culture within the workplace, and how conduct which had been tolerated in the past was no longer acceptable. The Registrant described that he had ‘learnt an awful lot’.
187. The Panel was satisfied that no matter how friendly and relaxed the Registrant perceives a work relationship to be, he will not conduct himself in such a way again.
188. Whilst the Panel noted that there was no independent evidence of the training he has undertaken, it accepted his oral evidence that he had completed this training, particularly as he remains employed as a Paramedic with SWAST. The Panel considered that he has also demonstrated that he has learnt from the training, in that he provided examples of actively challenging other colleagues when they have demonstrated inappropriate conduct.
189. The Panel considered whether the misconduct was likely to be repeated by the Registrant. The Panel took into account all it had read and heard about the misconduct. It kept in mind the Registrant’s partial admissions, his insight, his engagement with the HCPC process and his assertion that this behaviour would not be repeated. The Registrant’s oral evidence was that he is ‘incredibly mindful now of what [he] say[s]’ and that he ‘constantly check[s] [himself] to make sure that [he’s] behaving properly. He states that this has made him see things differently and that he has grown as a person by doing that.
190. The Panel took into account that since the incidents, the Registrant has been entrusted with mentoring female student Paramedics. The most recent student he supported has provided a character reference, sent in June 2025, in which she describes his approach as ‘consistently kind, calm, and highly professional.’
191. In all the circumstances the Panel were assured that the risk of repetition was low.
192. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently personally impaired on the grounds of his misconduct.
193. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at paragraph 74:- ‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’
194. The Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant. The Panel considered whether:
a- The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.
b- The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
c- The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
195. In relation to a), the Panel determined that although the Registrant had not placed service users at unwarranted risk of harm, he had caused Colleague A emotional harm by breaching professional boundaries in the way that he did. Colleague A told the Panel that she had felt ‘very uncomfortable, and embarrassed and awkward’ by the Registrants conduct.
196. Whilst there is no evidence of service user harm, the Registrant’s conduct took place whilst he was on shift with Colleague A, carrying out a managerial role. There is a potential risk that when boundaries are breached in this way, it impacts on effective team working which is vital for the health and safety of service users. Paramedics often work in demanding and stressful roles and effective team support is essential to help them perform well in that environment. Anything which undermines that team support has the potential to adversely impact performance, and/or cause professionals to leave the profession altogether.
197. In relation to b), that is the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as not to bring the profession into disrepute. The role of the Standards is to set out in general terms how Registrants are expected to behave and outline what the public should expect from their health and care professional. In breaching three of the Standards, as already set out within this decision, the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute.
198. The Panel then considered c), being whether the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel took into account that it is essential to the effective delivery of the ambulance service that the public can trust Paramedics to act within professional boundaries and comply with the Standards which are fundamentally in place to ensure patient safety. In acting as he did, towards a more junior colleague, the Registrant abused his professional position, failed to have regard to the power and trust placed in him as a registered Paramedic, and failed to maintain professional boundaries. The Panel considered that the conduct, as described, demonstrated a breach of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
199. The Panel asked itself, given the nature of the Allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?
200. Based on its findings in relation to harm caused to Colleague A, bringing the profession into disrepute, and the breaching of the fundamental tenets of the profession, the Panel concluded that public confidence would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the misconduct would seriously undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.
201. The Panel therefore decided on the public interest element of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Sanction

202. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the HCPC remain neutral on sanction. Ms Bernard-Stevenson reminded the Panel to have close regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy last updated March 2019.
203. Ms Bernard-Stevenson drew the Panel’s attention to what she submitted were relevant parts of the Sanctions Policy in relation to seriousness. This included reference to ‘abuse of professional position’, which she acknowledged was more pertinent to service users, but that the Panel had found that there was an imbalance of power due to Colleague A being junior to the Registrant.
204. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the ‘failure to work in partnership’ and ‘sexual misconduct’ sections of the Sanctions Policy were also relevant in this case. She reminded the Panel that the Registrant’s conduct had resulted in Colleague A feeling, ‘very uncomfortable, and embarrassed and awkward.’
205. In relation to mitigating features, Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel should have regard to its findings that the Registrant has shown insight and genuine remorse.
206. The Registrant made submissions in relation to sanction. He acknowledged that taking no further action would not be appropriate to mark the public interest finding of impairment. However, he asked the Panel to show leniency in relation to imposing a sanction.
207. The Registrant asked the Panel to take into account his long-standing career, his good reputation, and the respect he has worked hard to earn from others within the service as well as professionals who work alongside him, such as police officers and doctors.
208. The Registrant submitted that he is respectful, kind, and courteous to all, and that he treats service users with dignity and professionalism.
209. The Registrant submitted that he never intended to cause Colleague A any emotional harm. He said that he was horrified when he was told he had done so, and that he has lost a friend. The Registrant reminded the Panel that he had wanted to immediately apologise to Colleague A, but SWAST told him that it was not possible due to the investigation process.
210. The Registrant submitted that the conduct found proved was a departure from his usual behaviour. He submitted that he had lost sight of boundaries with someone he considered as a friend and equal.
211. The Registrant acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate as a manager or as a Paramedic, and should not have happened, and will not be repeated.
212. The Registrant submitted that he had embarked on self-learning to educate himself and has remained in front line service, working alongside a mixed range of individuals, with no further issues.
213. The Registrant submitted that he would continue to challenge inappropriate behaviour when he sees this within the workplace.
214. The Registrant told the Panel that he is not a bad person and that these incidents and the subsequent processes have caused him a great deal of stress, and that he would never put himself in that position again.
215. Although the Registrant did not make submissions on his financial position, the Panel had already received written and oral evidence relating to this. As a result of the SWAST investigation and disciplinary, the Registrant was demoted and thus received a decrease in his pay. He was also moved to a different station much further from his home which increased his travel time and cost.
216. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system, and declare and uphold proper professional standards.
217. The Legal Assessor also referred to the following HCPTS Practice Notes:
• Impairment (dated August 2025) paragraphs 19 – 20.
• Making decision on a registrant’s state of mind (dated August 2025) paragraph 23 – 24.
• Professional Boundaries (dated September 2024).
• Drafting fitness to practise decisions (dated November 2022).

Panel Decision

218. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.
219. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
• The Registrant has developed insight and has reflected at length over the last three years.
• The Registrant has shown genuine remorse from an early stage, including during the SWAST investigation and prior to the HCPC referral.
• The Registrant made some early admissions.
• There have been no previous regulatory matters raised against the Registrant during his long career as a Paramedic. No further concerns have been raised since the incidents in Summer 2022, during which time the Registrant has remained in unrestricted practice. In accordance with the character references, the misconduct found against the Registrant appears to be a departure from his usual standard of professional behaviour.
• The Registrant has shown a willingness to remediate and to address cultural issues within the profession by undergoing some further relevant training (sexual safety charter), by speaking out and actively championing the sexual safety charter.
220. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• The imbalance of power between the Registrant and Colleague A, who was a younger, junior, female colleague.
• The Registrant’s actions were sexual in nature and sexually motivated and included non-consensual touching. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A on a number of occasions, which was an abuse of his professional position.
221. In considering the mitigating and aggravating factors, the Panel had regard to the need to assess the seriousness of the issues raised by the case. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 67, 76 and 77 of the Sanctions Policy. It took into account that it had found, at the impairment stage, that in acting as he did, towards a junior colleague, the Registrant abused his professional position, failed to have regard to the power and trust placed in him as a registered Paramedic, and failed to maintain professional boundaries. Furthermore, the misconduct found in this case was sexual misconduct.
222. The Panel considered that whilst the Registrant’s misconduct did not result in any harm to service users, it did cause emotional harm to Colleague A, as already described within this decision.
223. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction, working upwards only where necessary. It noted that the final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public interest.
224. Due to the serious nature of the sexual misconduct findings and the abuse of his position of trust, the Panel concluded that taking no further action would not be appropriate.
225. The Panel next considered whether a caution order would be appropriate. The Panel considered its earlier decision on misconduct and impairment. It noted that it had found the Registrant to have shown insight and that he had undertaken appropriate remediation, such that it was satisfied that there was no risk of repetition.
226. However, the Panel considered that a caution order would not be in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy which states: ‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature.’
227. The Panel concluded that the misconduct was isolated in that it related to a few incidents, over a short period of time, and against one colleague. However, the Panel determined that the misconduct was not minor in nature as it involved abuse of the Registrants position of trust and involved sexually motivated conduct towards a younger, junior, female colleague.
228. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that whilst there is no ongoing risk of harm, a aution order would not reflect the action required to meet the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and the regulator.
229. The Panel next considered whether to impose a conditions of practice order. The Sanctions Policy states: ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving sexual misconduct.’ The Sanctions Policy also states that: ‘There may be circumstances in which a panel considers it appropriate to impose a conditions of practice order in the above cases [sexual misconduct]. However, it should only do so when it is satisfied that the registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated’.
230. As set out at paragraph 227 above, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was minor. Whilst the Panel had found no risk of repetition of the misconduct, the nature of the misconduct was such that the Panel did not consider that a conditions of practice order would meet the public interest elements of the overarching objective. Registration with the HCPC is an assurance to the public not only that they will be protected but also that the HCPC Standards will be upheld, and that confidence can be maintained in the HCPC as the regulator. The Panel considered that workable conditions of practice could not be formulated in this instance to meet these public interest objectives.
231. The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Sanctions Policy states: ‘A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.’
232. The Panel’s findings of misconduct and impairment recognise that Paramedics hold privileged positions of trust. The Panel took into account that it is essential to the effective delivery of the service that the public can trust Paramedics to act within the Standards which are in place to ensure public safety, which includes not only service users but also colleagues. Breaches of professional boundaries between colleagues can undermine effective team working, risking harm to the people that the team exists to serve. Whilst the Registrant’s conduct did not cause harm to service users, nor is he likely to present a future risk, he did engage in sexual misconduct against a younger, junior, female colleague, which represented a serious breach of three of the Standards.
233. Having considered that the circumstances of this case do raise serious concerns that cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be necessary to meet its objectives. It considered that this would also be a proportionate order recognising the personal and professional interests of the Registrant.
234. The Panel concluded that a suspension order would be appropriate as the Registrant has developed insight into his misconduct, has demonstrated remediation and the misconduct is unlikely to be repeated.
235. The Panel had regard to paragraph 124 of the Sanctions Policy which states that:
‘Short-term suspensions can also be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in our professions.’
236. The Panel considered this paragraph to be highly relevant in this case as it had only found impairment on the public component rather than the personal component, and it had found no risk to public safety. It therefore considered that a short-term suspension would be appropriate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold the Standards.
237. The Panel decided that a four-month Suspension Order should be imposed. The Panel concluded that this would be the appropriate length taking into account the level of insight and remorse shown, whilst balanced against the need to maintain public confidence and send a clear message that misconduct of this nature is not acceptable. The Panel considered that a four-month suspension would also take into account and balance the public interest in allowing a competent and experienced Paramedic to be allowed to practise.
238. The Panel decided that any duration longer than four months would be punitive and would not be proportionate taking into account all it had read and heard about the Registrant’s professional and financial interests.
239. The Panel did move on to consider whether this was a case that would more properly merit a striking-off order. The Sanctions Policy states: ‘A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.’
240. The Panel considered a Striking-off order would be unduly punitive in this case. The Panel reminded itself that whilst the conduct was sexually motivated, it was time limited within an otherwise long and unblemished career. There was no evidence of deep-seated attitudinal issues and the Registrant’s actions were not persistent or calculated. The misconduct was out of character for the Registrant and has not been repeated, nor is it likely to be so. The Panel therefore concluded that the sexual misconduct is at the lower end of seriousness and considered that a striking off order would be disproportionate and draconian.
241. The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was such that the requirements of the wider public interest would be adequately served by imposing a four-month Suspension Order.
242. Throughout its decision making, the Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel noted that the Registrant is currently employed as a Paramedic by SWAST. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a suspension order may have upon the Registrant but concluded that these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to the wider public interest.
243. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for four months.
244. The Panel acknowledged that this final Suspension Order will be reviewed by a panel before it expires. The Panel had regard to paragraph 120 of the Sanctions Policy which states:
‘Suspension orders cannot be made subject to conditions, but where the panel expects the registrant to address specific issues or take specific action before the suspension order is reviewed (for example, to undergo substance abuse treatment) clear guidance should be given setting out what is expected of the registrant and the evidence that may be helpful to any future review panel. However, panels should avoid being unduly prescriptive and must not bind or fetter the discretion of a future review panel.’
245. On the basis that this Panel has found impairment only on the public component, there are no specific issues or actions which this Panel expects the Registrant to address before the review, although the reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by the Registrant’s continued engagement and attendance at the review hearing.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Stephen Chance-Hyett for a period of 4 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

246. You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

247. 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

248. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that an interim suspension order is necessary in line with the findings of the Panel in relation to the Allegation. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that an interim order would safeguard the public interest, in line with the decision of the Panel to date.

249. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel had made findings of a serious nature including non-consensual touching, abuse of professional position and a transgression of boundaries. She submitted that a member of the public would be shocked if the Registrant was allowed to practice before the substantive order comes into force.

250. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the interim suspension order should be made for eighteen months to cover the appeal period.

251. The Registrant told the Panel that he understood the four-month substantive Suspension Order was needed. However, he submitted that an interim order for eighteen months would be unmanageable for him. He submitted that it was likely that his current employer would dismiss him if he was unable to practise for that length of time.

252. The Registrant submitted that an interim order would impact on him financially.

253. The Registrant reminded the Panel that he continues to practise as a Paramedic and no further issues had arisen in the three years since the incidents. He submitted that his departure from the Standards was a one off within his career and that he had no intention to cause harm.

254. The Registrant submitted that an interim order is not necessary.

Decision

255. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider whether an interim order is necessary under Article 31, to protect the public or in the public interest or the Registrant’s own interest, because of the nature of the findings made in this case. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC Sanctions Policy which states: ‘An interim order is likely to be required in cases where: … the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’ The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel to take into account the HCPTS guidance note entitled ‘Interim orders’ dated September 2024.

256. The Panel was not satisfied that an interim order is necessary to cover the appeal period.

257. The Panel took into account that this is not a case which involved ongoing or future risk, and therefore an interim order is not required for the protection of the public.

258. As to whether an interim order is required otherwise in the public interest, the Panel determined that it was not. The Panel took into account that the threshold of interim orders on the public interest ground alone is high. It had regard to the fact that the Registrant has continued to practise as a Paramedic, since 2022, without any further issues. The Panel had regard to the principle of proportionality and the adverse impact an Interim Suspension Order would have on the Registrant. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct is not so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice during the appeal period. The Panel was satisfied that public confidence is sufficiently reflected by the imposition of the four-month substantive Suspension Order.

259. The Panel concluded that an interim order otherwise in the public interest is not required.

History of Hearings for ​​Stephen Chance-Hyett​