Mr Liam Jones

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the Notice’) had been sent by electronic mail (‘e-mail’) on 30 April 2025, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Panel also noted that it had before it an email ‘delivery receipt’ confirming that the Notice had been delivered to the Registrant’s email address, on 30 April 2025, timed at 15:14pm.

2. Additionally, the Panel had an email from the Registrant, dated 22 September 2025 and timed at 13:58pm, before it. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s email was in response to correspondence from the HCPTS, dated 18 September 2025, in which the HCPTS asked the Registrant to confirm whether he intended to attend the Substantive Hearing (listed between 06 – 09 October 2025). The Registrant’s response stated:
‘…
thank you for your email, as Natasha is aware as she understands the position and I will not be attending, as already discussed, I have summitted my consent order disposable forms but have not heard anything as of yet.
If you need anything more let me know, thanks both for continuing support…’

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that the Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
4. Mr Schofield, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, as permitted by Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, he drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s email addressed to the HCPTS, dated 22 September 2025.

5. Further, Mr Schofield also submitted:
i. the Registrant had decided of his own volition not to attend the hearing and had not sought an adjournment of the hearing;
ii. there was nothing before the Panel to suggest that an adjournment of the proceedings would secure the Registrant’s future attendance at a hearing; and
iii. whilst the Registrant would be at a disadvantage by voluntarily choosing not to attend, the HCPC submits that the interests of the public outweigh any disadvantage caused to the Registrant in this case should the Panel decide to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

7. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:
a) the Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules and that the Registrant had been afforded with over five months’ notice of the hearing;
b) there has been no application to adjourn the hearing and the email from the Registrant, outlined above, provided no indication that the Registrant was seeking an adjournment of the hearing or that the Registrant would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date.
Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings;
c) the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions to it. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been afforded with an opportunity to attend the hearing and he had chosen not to do so. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had provided written representations for it to consider and the Panel would have regard to these when determining the matters before it. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that any potential disadvantage caused to the Registrant by him voluntarily absenting himself from the proceedings, could be mitigated with reference to his written submissions; and
d) as this is a Substantive Hearing there is a strong public interest in ensuring that it is considered expeditiously. The Panel was also of the view that it is also in the Registrant’s own interest that the Allegation is heard as soon as possible.

Privacy application
8. The Panel noted that there was information contained within the HCPC bundle (which the Registrant had furnished to the HCPC), which pertained to the Registrant’s health. The Panel therefore invited submissions from Mr Schofield on whether it ought to conduct all or parts of the hearing in private.

9. Mr Schofield indicated that he did not intend to reference or rely on any matters relating to the Registrant’s health and consequently, it was a matter for the Panel to determine.

10. In considering the point, the Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, which had drawn its attention to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules and to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’. The Panel also had regard to the practice note and to Mr Schofield’s submissions. The Panel also carefully considered the public interest grounds in the case being heard in public. However, having done so, the Panel determined that it was appropriate to conduct parts of the hearing, where the Registrant’s health might be referenced, in private, because the Registrant may suffer disproportionate damage if it did not do so.
11. The Panel therefore ordered that parts of the hearing pertaining to the Registrant’s health, be conducted in private.

Background
12. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.

13. The Registrant was employed, at the material time, as a ‘Band 6’ Paramedic, working for South West Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (‘SWAST’). The Registrant commenced employment with SWAST following his qualification and initial HCPC registration, in 2016.

14. Two applications are alleged to have been made by the Registrant, and are the subject of the fitness to practise concerns in this case. The two applications are as follows:
a) an application for an ‘Advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice’ course provided by the University of Cumbria (‘UoC application’); and
b) an application for a Hazardous Area Response Team position on SWAST (‘HART application’).

15. The HCPC allege that on 10 February 2023, the Registrant submitted the UoC application. The entry requirements for that course were that the applicant needed evidence of prior successful studies at an underpinning level. Within the application, the Registrant is alleged to have stated that his qualifications included:
a. A Masters (level 7) completed module in Pre-Hospital Trauma from the University of the West of England (‘UWE’);
b. A bachelor of science degree (‘BSc’) (level 6) in Paramedic service from Saint George’s, University of London.

16. Following the UoC application, UoC requested copies of the Registrant’s qualification certificates as part of their standard offer letter procedures.

17. On 14 March 2023, at 15:40pm, a document is said to have been uploaded to UoC’s applicant portal in support of the Registrant’s application. The document was an image of a BSc degree in Practice Development; Developing Paramedic Practice from UoC in the name of the Registrant.

18. The admissions department at UoC had concerns about the nature and content of the Registrant’s application and the document uploaded to the portal, as they could not find any record of the Registrant completing the BSc course with them. The admissions department also had concerns regarding the contents and quality of the image, noting that the uploaded certificate appeared to have the Registrant’s name in a different type font to that which was utilised on the rest of the certificate. Further, the student reference number which appeared on the certificate matched that of another student (who had completed the specific BSc course and, on the date recorded in the certificate uploaded to the portal in support of the Registrant’s application). UoC’s concern was therefore that the uploaded certificate was that of Person A’s and that it had been manipulated to show the Registrant’s name on it, instead of Person A’s.

19. During the course of UoC making further enquiries with the Registrant, the document was deleted from the portal, on 24 March 2023. However, UoC had already retained a copy of the image.

20. On 29 March 2023, the Registrant is also said to have submitted an application for the HART position at SWAST. As part of the qualifications listed in that application the Registrant stated that the following had been completed:
a. BSc in developing paramedic practice (with other information which was consistent with the Edited certificate);
b. UWE level 7 course on Pre-Hospital Trauma (as also mentioned in the UoC application);
c. UoC level 7 course on Advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice (which was the course subject to the Registrant’s above UoC application);
d. UWE level 7 course on mentoring and leadership; and
e. Resuscitation Council course on Advanced Life Support.

21. Additionally, in the ‘supporting information’ section of this application, the Registrant is alleged to have stated that he:
a. had a BSc in Paramedic Science; and
b. had worked at SWAST’s ‘clinical validation line’.

22. On 17 April 2023, Mr Martin Frood, a Principal Lecturer at UoC emailed Mr Alex Jamieson, the Learning and Development co-ordinator at SWAST, to raise the concerns.

23. On 20 April 2023, Mr Oliver Bourton, an Operational Officer (and the Registrant’s line manager) was tasked with leading an investigation into the aforementioned concerns.

24. On 21 April 2023, the Registrant is said to have withdrawn his HART application. Later the same month (April 2023), the Registrant resigned from the Trust’s employment.

Decision on Facts
Summary of Evidence
25. Mr Schofield opened and briefly summarised the HCPC’s case. In doing so, he outlined that the HCPC relied upon the Registrant’s written admissions (as contained within the HCPC bundle in the ‘Notice to Admit Facts’ document and within an email exchange contained within the addendum bundle) and he submitted that on the basis of this information alone (and in line with the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Admissions’), the Panel could find the facts proved.

26. Mr Schofield also submitted, that if the Panel were not minded to accept his submission that the Registrant’s written admissions alone were sufficient to find the facts proved, then the Panel could adopt a more “cautious approach” and alternatively, it could have regard to the Registrant’s admissions as part of the wider matrix of evidence placed before the Panel.

27. The Panel considered the Registrant’s written admissions with care. In doing so, it noted that the Registrant was unrepresented and had not attended the hearing. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had accepted all matters alleged within the Allegation, in the ‘Notice to Admit’ document furnished to him and that he had also confirmed his understanding of the term ‘dishonesty’, and that he accepted his actions were dishonest, in a subsequent exchange with the HCPC (dated 03 October 2025).

28. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and it had regard to the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Admissions’. Having done so, the Panel determined that in view of the fact that the Registrant was unrepresented in these proceedings, had not attended the hearing to confirm his admissions in person and that the HCPTS practice note appeared to focus upon a Panel accepting admissions from a Registrant who was in attendance at a hearing, as opposed to considering written admissions from an absent registrant, that it would consider the totality of the evidence before it rather than just accepting the Registrant’s written admissions as sufficient to find the facts proved. In making this decision, the Panel also had regard to the fact that it is for the HCPC to prove its case and the Panel therefore determined that it was fairest, and in the interests of justice, to consider the Registrant’s admissions as part of the wider matrix of evidence presented to it rather than rely upon them alone to find facts proved.

Witness evidence
29. The HCPC did not call any witnesses to give oral evidence to the Panel. The witness accounts below are therefore provided as a summary of the documentary evidence provided to the Panel and are not intended to be a verbatim account of the evidence provided.

AM
30. AM’s written witness statement informed the Panel that he was a registered Paramedic, who had been employed by SWAST since 2001. He also stated that in his current role, as Learning and Development Manager, he manages two teams. The first being the Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) team and the second where he manages the undergraduate students and Practice Educators.

31. AM stated that he had never worked alongside the Registrant as a Paramedic, but stated that he may have exchanged correspondence with him regarding the Registrant’s CPD.

32. AM also informed the Panel, in his witness statement, that on 20 April 2023, he had cause to submit a referral to the HCPC owing to concerns regarding the Registrant submitting a fraudulent Bachelor of Science (‘BSc’) certificate in order to gain access onto a SWAST funded level seven CPD module at UoC.

33. AM also outlined that on 17 April 2023, he was informed that the Registrant had submitted a certificate to UoC, in support of an application for a level 7 CPD course in advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice course being run at UoC. AM stated that the course requirements were that an applicant had to have successfully studied at an underpinning level, normally a BSc degree at level six and had to provide evidence of study at level seven (as this would be considered favourable). AM confirmed, in his witness statement, that the Registrant had submitted a certificate for a BSc (Honours) Upper Second Class in ‘Developing Paramedic Practice’ to the student portal, in support of his application form submitted in February 2023.

34. AM stated that concerns were first raised with him, when a student record for the Registrant could not be found. Further, AM also outlined that it was also noted, from the submitted certificate, that the certificate bore the student number for a different student. AM stated that when the Registrant was also asked to provide another copy of the certificate, the original certificate had been removed from the portal.

35. AM also informed the Panel that he attended a ‘Scope of Practice’ meeting, with the Registrant, and others, on 20 April 2023. AM outlined that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the Registrant’s professional integrity, given that there was a concern about him having been dishonest about his qualifications in order to gain access onto a course. AM further stated that the outcome of this meeting was that the Registrant was asked to produce a statement as to the events that had occurred and a Trust investigation ensued.

36. AM also outlined in his witness statement, that the Trust investigation into the aforementioned concerns was undertaken by his colleague, OB. AM however, told the Panel that he was charged with ‘looking into’ the level 7 qualification that the Registrant had listed on his application for the MSc Level 7 module – pre hospital trauma from the UWE. AM informed the Panel that owing to his role, he was able to check on the University’s ‘dashboard’, to see the status of modules that employees have registered for.

37. AM further outlined that he could see, from the UWE dashboard, that the Registrant had registered for this module but had later withdrawn from the course and had not sat the exam. AM also outlined that having checked the dashboard after the investigation concluded, that he could see that the Registrant had since passed the module. AM stated that other than this enquiry, he was not involved in the Trust’s investigation into the Registrant’s conduct.

38. AM also provided evidence that he was also asked to check the status of another level 7 module which the Registrant had stated he had completed on his job application for the Hazardous Area Response Team (‘HART’). AM stated that after making enquiries, he was able to ascertain that the Registrant had listed the following courses as having been ‘passed’ by him:
i. BSC (Hons) developing paramedic practice;
ii. MSc (level 7) 20 credits – pre-hospital trauma; and
iii. MSc (level 7) 15 credits – mentoring and leadership.

39. AM also outlined, in his witness statement, that he was not aware, after making relevant enquiries, that the Registrant had not completed any of the aforementioned courses at the time he submitted his application.

40. AM also provided a number of documentary exhibits, attesting to the aforementioned, for the Panel’s consideration.

OB
41. OB outlined in his written witness statement that he was a registered Paramedic, who had been employed by SWAST since November 2017.

42. OB stated that the Registrant was a Band 6 paramedic employed by SWAST, since 2021 and that he was the Registrant’s line manager.

43. In his witness statement, OB also outlined that he was first made aware of concerns regarding the Registrant potentially having submitted a false certificate to gain entry onto a course, on 20 April 2023. OB stated, that as the Registrant’s line manager, he was tasked with conducting an investigation into the Registrant’s conduct regarding two concerns, that he:
1. had forged a degree certificate for the UoC level 7 module; and
2. had submitted falsified qualifications in his application for a HART paramedic position on 29 March 2023.

44. OB stated that in respect of the first concern (outlined above), that he was informed that the Registrant had applied on 10 February 2023, to gain entry onto the UoC CPD level 7 module called ‘Advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice’ and that as part of his application the Registrant was asked to upload certificates detailing his highest level of study to UoC’s student portal as a part of the application process. OB also outlined to the Panel, that as a prerequisite for the course, applicants are expected to have a Bachelor of Science (BSc) or evidence of qualifications at level seven.

45. OB further outlined in his witness statement that a copy of a certificate was uploaded to the UoC student portal on 14 March 2023 and following enquiries, concerns were raised by UoC because the Registrant’s qualifications listed on his application did not match the certificate uploaded and upon checking, UoC could also find no record of the Registrant having ever completed the Bachelor of Science. OB outlined that it was also noted that the certificate submitted bore the number of a different student (Person A), under the date for award.

46. OB also outlined that during the course of his investigation into the concerns, the Registrant provided him with four different accounts of how the certificate came to be, and how it was submitted.

47. OB also outlined to the Panel that, during his investigation, he became aware that the Registrant had applied for a role in HART and in doing so, he had submitted that he held the following qualifications, which was inaccurate:
i. BSc degree from the UoC, which he did not have;
ii. Level 7 module from the UWE in Mentoring and Leadership, which the UWE confirmed he did not attend;
iii. Level 7 Advance Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice module with the UoC which is the module that he was applying for when the concerns came to light;
iv. Level 7 Pre Hospital Trauma which the UWE confirmed at the time of his application, he had not yet sat the exam for; and
v. Resus Council Advanced Life Support (‘ALS’). The Registrant was booked onto this course for May 2023 but his application was in April 2023, so at the time of his application, he had not passed the course.

48. OB informed the Panel however, that it had been subsequently confirmed to him that the Registrant had completed the Level 7 Pre Hospital Trauma module at UWE, after completing a resit, on 23 April 2023.

49. OB also outlined that the Registrant, in support of his HART application made the following statements which were incorrect:
i. He has a BSc in Paramedic science;
ii. He has attended a resuscitation Council UK ALS; and
iii. He has worked on the clinical validation line.

50. OB also explained in his witness statement that the clinical validation line is a system utilised by newly qualified paramedics, for the first two years of practice when they have to discuss decisions in high-risk situations. OB stated that he knew that the Registrant had not completed the necessary training to complete this role, because it was his responsibility to organise the training of individuals who went on to perform this role, and he had not done so in respect of the Registrant.

51. OB also outlined to the Panel that the Registrant had provided numerous accounts and explanations when asked about his conduct, but had accepted, in a disciplinary meeting on 09 June 2023, that, in future, if he has included any courses on an application that he has not yet finished, he should make this clear in the application.

52. OB stated that in June 2023, the Registrant resigned from SWAST and as a result of this, he was unable to complete his investigation into the Registrant’s conduct.

Documentation and submissions from the Registrant
53. The Panel noted that the Registrant had outlined, in the Notice to Admit Facts’ document, dated 12 August 2025, provided to him by the HCPC, that he admitted the Allegation in full and that he also accepted the contents of the witnesses’ statements and the associated exhibits.

54. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had provided the following written submissions (undated) for its consideration:
To the HCPC Panel,
I am writing to respectfully request that the panel take into consideration several key points when determining the outcome of my hearing. My name is Liam Jones, and I wish to provide context to the errors I have made, my journey of reflection and personal growth, and the impact these events have had on my professional and personal life.

First and foremost, I fully acknowledge and accept full responsibility for the mistakes I have made that have led to this hearing. I have spent the past two and half years reflecting deeply on my actions. From this experience, I have gained an immense appreciation for the importance of transparent and precise wording, particularly when presenting qualifications on a CV. I recognise now that I should have indicated I was ‘working towards’ certain achievements, and I did take steps to withdraw my application at the time where these errors had occurred.

The consequences of my actions have been profound. I have lost the opportunity of a job with HART, a role for which I invested significant effort and held in high regard, one that I strived for and cherished, and in doing so, have voluntarily left the profession I studied for and loved dearly. I have paid the ultimate price, not only in terms of my career but also in my personal life. This has been a period of considerable hardship and reflection, and it is with genuine regret that I acknowledge the distress caused by my conduct.

Despite these errors, throughout this period, my professional practice has remained compliant with HCPC standards. During the investigation, I continued working in my role assessing PIP claims, adhering to all regulatory and safety requirements. I have consistently met my professional responsibilities and maintained the high standards expected in my field.

I ask the panel to take into account my service record prior to these events. I was a valued member of my team and received numerous commendations, including the highest award from the Chief Executive in 2023. These acknowledgements reflect my commitment to the profession and the positive contributions I made before these errors occurred.

This process has also led me to a deeper understanding of myself.

I am committed to personal growth and ensuring that I learn from these experiences as I move forward. In addition to the above, I would like to highlight my ongoing efforts to improve and demonstrate accountability. I have voluntarily sought mentorship from senior colleagues to help me uphold the highest standards in my work. I have also maintained open and honest communication with my supervisors throughout this period, welcoming their guidance and feedback.

I am truly sorry for the mistakes I made, and I sincerely ask the panel to consider not only my reflection and remorse but also the significant impact these proceedings have had on my life. By voluntarily leaving the paramedic frontline profession, a role that had been both my vocation and my passion, I have paid the ultimate price for my actions. I hope that my service, dedication, and the steps I have taken to remedy my errors will be considered as the panel decides upon an appropriate sanction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.’

Decisions on Facts
Panel’s Approach
55. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

56. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundles (outlined below), as well as the submissions made by the parties.

57. The Panel had before it the following documentation:
i. HCPC hearing bundle – 139 pages;
ii. HCPC addendum bundle - 10 pages;
iii. HCPC case summary – 12 pages; and
iv. HCPC service bundle – 9 pages.

58. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes: “Admissions” and “Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind”.
Stem
‘As a registered Paramedic (PA41321):’

59. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence before it, namely the certificate confirming the Registrant’s registration status with the HCPC, that the Registrant is a registered Paramedic with the HCPC registration number PA41321.

Particular 1 – Found Proved
1. Between 13 February 2023 and 14 March 2023, having edited Person A’s Bachelor of Science certificate by changing the name of the certificate recipient to your name (“the Edited Certificate”),
a. you submitted the Edited Certificate in support of your application to the University of Cumbria for a funded place on a level 7 CPD module “Advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice”;
b. you acted as set out in 1(a) above deliberately.

60. The Panel had regard to the totality of the evidence before it and in doing so it noted that a copy of the “Edited Certificate” had been placed before it, along with confirmation, from the witnesses, that the Registrant had submitted the ‘Edited Certificate’ to UoC on 14 March 2023, and that he did not hold the BSc qualification, with UoC, nor did UoC have a record of him being a student.

61. Additionally, the Panel also had regard to OB’s evidence to it that the Registrant had provided a number of explanations to him, during the course of his investigation into the Registrant’s conduct, regarding how the certificate had come into being and why and how it had been submitted. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had accepted, during SWAST’s investigation, submitting the Edited Certificate as part of his application for the level 7 course.

62. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had admitted, in the Notice to Admit facts document, that he had edited Person A’s Bachelor of Science certificate, replacing Person A’s name with his own, and that he had also submitted the Edited Certificate, on 14 March 2023, in support of his application to UoC, for a funded place on a Level 7 CPD module “Advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice” course and that he had done so deliberately.

63. The Panel was therefore satisfied, to the required standard, that the facts contained within Particular 1(a) and 1(b) were proved.

64. Consequently, Particular 1 is proved in its entirety.

Particular 2 – Found Proved
2. On or around 29 March 2023, you submitted an application to the Trust South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust for a Hazardous Area Response Team (“HART”) paramedic role within which you stated and/or claimed to have one or more matters in Schedule 1.

65. The Panel again accepted the documentary and witness evidence placed before it. Noting, in particular, that the Registrant’s application for HART outlined that he held each of the qualifications and experience listed in Schedule 1 (outlined above).

66. Additionally, the Panel also had regard to OB’s witness statement, where he outlined that as part of his investigation into the Registrant’s conduct, he had established that the Registrant had not passed, at the time of his application for HART, the courses outlined within Schedule 1, nor had he obtained experience of working on ‘the clinical validation line’.

67. Lastly, the Panel again noted that the Registrant admitted his conduct, in respect of this Particular, in the ‘Notice to admit facts’ document.

68. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2 proved in its entirety.

Particulars 3 and 4 – Found Proved
3. Your conduct in relation to Particular 1 was dishonest in that you intended to create a false impression of your qualifications.

4. Your conduct in relation to Particular 2 was dishonest in that you intended to create a false impression of your qualifications and/or experience.
69. The Panel considered the evidence before it and in doing so, it noted that the Registrant had provided numerous accounts during the course of SWAST’s investigation into his conduct, for his submission of the ‘Edited Certificate’ to the UoC and his reasons for including qualifications that he had not completed. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s accounts included but were not limited to: that the Edited Certificate was ‘a joke with a friend’; and that he had claimed that the Edited Certificate was submitted to the UoC portal accidently when he was enroute to a 999-emergency call-out despite it later being established, by the SWAST investigation that the Registrant was not working on the 14 March 2023, when he claimed to be. The Panel also noted that the Registrant later accepted that he had fabricated and submitted the document in furtherance of creating a false impression as to his qualifications.

70. Further, the Panel noted that in the disciplinary meeting convened on 09 June 2023, the Registrant admitted to OB that he did not have experience in clinical validation and stated that he had included it on his application for HART because “it sounded good”. The Panel also noted that it had evidence before it that the Registrant had also accepted that he needed to be more careful when submitting applications to ensure that they accurately reflect his qualifications and experience.

71. Lastly, the Panel again noted that the Registrant had made full admissions as to the conduct alleged in Particulars 3 and 4, and in addition, had, upon clarification sought from the HCPC, outlined that he understood the definition of the term ‘dishonesty’ and accepted that his conduct amounted to dishonest conduct.

72. Having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied to the requisite standard that the Registrant knew that his actions, in creating and submitting a false certificate in support of his application to UoC, were dishonest and that he should not have been doing it.

73. Similarly, the Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant knew, when he outlined on his application for the HART team that he had passed a number of courses and held the relevant qualifications and had gained experience in clinical validation, that he did not, and the Panel considered that the Registrant’s sole purpose and motivation for doing so, was to support his application in an attempt to secure him the position applied for.

74. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant’s actions, in respect of Particulars 1 and 2, would be considered to be dishonest by an ordinary decent person.

75. Consequently, the Panel found Particulars 3 and 4 proved.

Decision on Grounds
76. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 to 4 amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct, under Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Health Professions Order 2001. In doing so, it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it took account of Mr Schofield’s written and oral submissions which, in summary, had drawn the Panel’s attention to the following:
i. as Particulars 1 to 4 have been found proved, this establishes that the Registrant’s conduct fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of an HCPC registered Paramedic;
ii. the Registrant’s actions could not be considered to be a momentary lapse, inconsequential or something forgivable;
iii. the Registrant’s actions were premeditated and repeated and were made in an attempt to access courses or positions he otherwise did not have the qualifications or experience for; and
iv. the Registrant’s conduct must, therefore be considered to be ‘serious’.

77. In order to assist with its decision, the Panel considered the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’.

78. Having done so, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct had breached the following:
Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics
• 9 – Be honest and trustworthy;

Personal and professional behaviour
• 9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession;
• 9.2 – You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.

79. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions of: falsifying a BSc certificate; utilising the same certificate to apply for a course (which required essential knowledge to be accepted onto it); and was untruthful as to how and when the certificate was submitted, blaming others for his actions when confronted by SWAST, amounted to conduct which fell far below the standards expected of a registered Paramedic and could only be considered to be deplorable and very serious.

80. Further, and similarly, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s actions by submitting false claims about the qualifications and experience he possessed in order to apply for a role with HART (a specialist team dealing with high-risk and potentially serious incidents), also fell far below that expected of a registered practitioner and could also only be considered as deplorable and amounting to that which the Panel considered to be very serious.

81. In forming these views, the Panel noted that both the Level 7 (CPD module in advanced Pathophysiology and Disease in Practice) course and the role which the Registrant applied for with HART, required the applicant to have a certain level of underpinning knowledge, skills and/or experience and when the Registrant dishonestly represented that he possessed the required knowledge, skills and/or experience his actions fell far below the standards expected of him as a registered Paramedic.

82. Further, in the Panel’s view, had the Registrant’s dishonest actions not been detected, and had he been admitted onto the course and/or into the HART team role, then his level of knowledge, skills and experience would have inevitably, been lacking. Further, when considering this point, the Panel also concluded that members of the public, often in vulnerable situations owing to the nature of the role of a Paramedic responding to them, ought to be able to rely upon and expect that the Paramedic attending to them, has the requisite skills, knowledge and/or experience to be able to treat them. The Panel therefore also considered that the Registrant’s actions, in falsifying his qualifications, skills and/or experience on multiple occasions, could have led to a situation whereby he was called upon to treat a member of the public, whereby the aforementioned was relied upon, and as a direct result of his dishonest conduct, the required knowledge, skills and/or experience would not have been present. Meaning, that the Registrant’s conduct posed a significant risk of harm to the public.

83. Further, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s actions had a direct impact on his colleagues. In the Panel’s view, colleagues of the Registrant’s may have had cause to rely upon his ‘claimed’ knowledge, skills and/or experience, believing them to be as stated by him, when this was not the case. The Panel therefore also concluded that not only did the Registrant’s actions cause a significant risk of potential harm to members of the public, but his conduct also had the potential to negatively impact upon his colleagues. In that, they too may have relied upon any advice and/or experience imparted by him and this also had the potential to place other practitioners practice at risk of fitness to practise proceedings were they to have relied upon any advice provided by him when he did not have the requisite knowledge, skills and/or experience to be able to provide it.

84. Additionally, the Panel also noted that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was not isolated, nor could it be considered to be limited to one incident. Rather, in the Panel’s view, it could only be considered to be that which was premeditated, repeated on multiple occasions and sustained. Noting in particular, that the Registrant had repeatedly misled SWAST during the course of its investigation, when his conduct was called into question. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had sought to apportion blame onto others, for his actions.

85. Consequently, the Panel considered that the matters outlined at Particular 1, Particular 2, Particular 3 and Particular 4 each represented serious breaches of professional standards, falling far below the behaviour expected of a registered Paramedic, and that each matter amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
86. Having found misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In doing so, the Panel took into account all of the evidence before it, and it had regard to the oral and written submissions made by Mr Schofield, in addition to the Registrant’s written submissions and the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’. The Panel also accepted the Legal Assessor’s legal advice.

87. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

88. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat conduct of the kind that led to his misconduct. In reaching its decision the Panel also had particular regard to the issues of insight, remorse and remediation.

89. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC
927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:
“When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”

90. The Panel also had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:
• whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;
• whether it has been remedied; and
• whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

91. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s conduct was remediable and in doing so, it formed the view that matters relating to dishonesty could be considered to be attitudinal in nature and are inherently difficult to remediate.

92. In considering whether the Registrant had demonstrated insight into his conduct, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s reflective piece (as outlined above). However, in doing so, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s submission was extremely limited in nature and focussed entirely upon himself and did not offer any meaningful insight into the impact of his actions on the public, his colleagues, or confidence in the wider profession. Additionally, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s reflective piece did not adequately address the underlying cause or reason for his dishonest conduct but rather, sought to minimise his actions, describing his conduct as “mistakes”. The Panel also formed the view that the Registrant had outlined very little remorse for his actions.
93. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant’s reflective piece was limited in nature and scope and demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight on his part.

94. In considering whether the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had only provided limited information and had not engaged in a meaningful manner in the regulatory proceedings, nor had he taken any steps to ensure that his conduct is not repeated moving forward. This concerned the Panel because not only did it note its earlier findings that the Registrant’s conduct was premeditated, repeated and sustained, it also noted the witnesses’ evidence to it which stated that when the Registrant was confronted about his actions, he provided multiple accounts for his dishonest conduct. The Panel could therefore not be satisfied that the Registrant has addressed the underlying causes of his conduct.

95. Furthermore, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had attested, in his reflective piece, to maintaining compliance with the HCPC standards of conduct and behaviour, but again, had not provided any documentary evidence to support this, nor had he provided any evidence of CPD.

96. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had not taken any steps to remediate his conduct and it was therefore highly likely that the Registrant’s conduct would recur. In the Panel’s view, this placed the public at risk of serious harm.

97. Accordingly, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

98. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds.

99. In relation to the public component of fitness to practise, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:
“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

100. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s conduct falls significantly far below the required standards of his profession and as such, bring his profession into disrepute. The Registrant’s conduct was for acts which are very serious in nature and which were repeated and sustained in nature. The Panel was also of the view that the public have to be able to trust healthcare professionals and having been found to have been dishonest on multiple occasions, the Panel was satisfied that the public would determine that it could no longer trust or have faith in the Registrant. Paramedics are placed in a position of trust with often very vulnerable service users and the Panel was of the view that an informed member of the public would be extremely shocked to learn that a registered Paramedic had falsified official documents and misled SWAST about his qualifications and experience in order to secure a position on a specialist team responsible for treating members of the public.

101. The Panel also considered that public trust and confidence in the wider profession and the HCPC as its regulator, alongside the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

102. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction
Panel’s approach
103. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Schofield, on behalf of the HCPC, which in summary, stated:
i. that the Panel ought to have regard to the HCPC sanctions policy;
ii. that the HCPC was not making a ‘sanctions bid’; and
iii. that there were limited mitigating factors in this case and numerous aggravating factors, which included: limited insight; repeated and sustained dishonest conduct; a lack of remediation; and a lack of meaningful engagement.

104. The Panel referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC and it had in mind that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also aware of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate.

105. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

106. The Panel considered whether there were any mitigating factors in this case and determined that the following mitigating factors were present:
i. some reflection on his actions, albeit very limited in nature;
ii. the Registrant had made admissions to his conduct shortly before the regulatory hearing commenced;
iii. the Registrant is of previous good regulatory character; and
iv. the Registrant had, in his reflective piece, provided an apology for his conduct.

107. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be that:
i. the Registrant’s conduct was premeditated, repeated and maintained;
ii. he played an active role in the dishonest conduct;
iii. he sought to apportion blame on others for his conduct;
iv. his actions caused potential harm to service users and/or colleagues; and
v. the Registrant has demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, remorse and/or remediation.

108. The Panel considered the option of taking no action. This is an exceptional outcome and the Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case were not exceptional. The Panel decided that the option of taking no action was not sufficient to uphold the public interest in this case in view of its findings.

109. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered the guidance in the Sanctions Policy that:
“A Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases which:
• the lapse is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight;
• and has taken appropriate remediation”.

110. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the findings in this case, nor were the Registrant’s actions isolated or relatively minor in nature. Further, the Panel had also determined that there was a risk of repetition and that the Registrant had not shown ‘good insight’. Therefore, the Panel determined that a Caution Order was not appropriate. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its Regulator, would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

111. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel considered that it would not be possible to draft conditions of practice which address the Registrant’s dishonest conduct as the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was attitudinal in nature. Further, owing to the fact that the Registrant has failed to engage with the regulatory process in a meaningful manner, and has failed to fully demonstrate remorse or a willingness to address his conduct and behaviour, the Panel determined that a conditions of practice order was not workable, proportionate or appropriate in this case.

112. The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Panel noted that 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. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• …
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’

113. Having had regard to the sanctions policy, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not appropriate in this case. In forming this view, the Panel again noted that the Registrant has not demonstrated appropriate insight into his conduct, nor has he provided sufficient information regarding his attempts to address his conduct, and the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was unlikely to be repeated. Given the seriousness of the Registrant’s dishonest conduct, and his lack of meaningful engagement in the proceedings, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would also be undermined if a suspension order was imposed.

114. The Panel next considered a striking off order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort. The Panel noted that the HCPC ‘Sanction Policy’ document states that a striking off order is appropriate where:
‘there has been serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving:
• dishonesty; and
• …’

115. The Panel also noted paragraphs 56 to 59 of the Sanctions Policy, and noted that they stated the following:
‘56. The standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to be honest and trustworthy (Standard 9). Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety.
57. Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions. The following are illustrations of such dishonesty:
• …
• Providing untruthful information in job applications (perhaps misleading the prospective employer about experience, training or skills gained);
• …
• …
58. Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions. However, panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include:
• whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;
• the duration of any dishonesty;
• whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it;
• any early admission of dishonesty on the registrant’s behalf; and
• any other relevant mitigating factors.’

116. The Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case are such that the Registrant acted in a deliberate and sustained manner and noted that he had sought to mislead UoC by producing a fabricated BSc certificate claiming to pass a course, and additionally he had also sought to mislead his employer (SWAST) in his application for a role within the HART team and the Panel considered his actions to be serious and a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession.

117. Further, the Registrant has also failed to demonstrate insight into his repeated and sustained conduct. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that these factors, when taken together, demonstrate a Registrant who lacks any meaningful insight, has demonstrated insufficient remorse for his actions and one who has not shown any willingness or intention to resolve matters. Further the Panel was also of the view that the Registrant had not provided any evidence that his actions would not be repeated.

118. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was appropriate to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process and that it would also send a clear message to other professionals. The Panel considered that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

119. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the impact of an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was of the view that the public interest considerations in this case significantly outweighed any detriment that might be caused, by the imposition of a striking off order, to the Registrant.

120. Accordingly, the Panel made an Order directing the Registrar to strike off the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Liam Jones from the HCPC Register on the date that this Order comes into effect.

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

Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

Interim Order
1. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Interim Orders”.

2. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order, for a period of 18 months, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel was of the view that to make no order in this case would be wholly inconsistent with its earlier findings. The Panel concluded that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and was also necessary in the public interest. The Panel therefore determined that an eighteen-month Interim Suspension Order is appropriate and proportionate pending the expiration of an appeal period.

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

History of Hearings for Mr Liam Jones