Peter J Burningham

Preliminary Matters
Service and Proceeding in Absence
1. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents before it that the Registrant had been properly served with Notice of this hearing. It had sight of the email sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 20 August 2025 informing him of the date and time of the remote hearing. The Panel was aware in view of the legal advice it received, that Rule 6 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules 2003 (the Rules) requires 28 days’ notice to be given, and that the duty on the Regulator is to send notice to the Registrant’s address as it appears on the Register. The Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021 allow for the service of documents by email. The Panel had sight of the email delivery receipt and the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, which confirmed his email address.

2. In addition, in September 2025 it was brought to the attention of the HCPC by the Registrant that he had changed his email address and a further copy of the notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant on 30 September 2025. The Registrant has acknowledged that he is aware that the hearing is taking place today.

3. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that service had been carried out in accordance with the Rules.

4. Mr Maughan made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant was aware of this hearing given his various emails stating he would not attend, and that he had voluntarily absented himself. He submitted that there was a clear public interest in proceeding today and an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance. He further submitted that the Registrant had expressed a wish for the matter to proceed, and he had provided written representations for the Panel to consider.

5. The Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor that in accordance with Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules it had a discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In determining whether in all the circumstances it was fair to do so, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence. It was aware, in view of the legal advice it received, of the factors which should inform its decision, as set out in R v Jones [2003] UKPC 34. It had regard to the case of General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 where the judge summarised the position as follows: “Where there is good reason not to proceed the case should be adjourned; where there is not however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

6. The Panel considered the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC since service of notice including his recent email dated 9 October 2025 and found that the Registrant is aware of the hearing but does not wish to attend. As such, the Panel determined that an adjournment would serve no purpose and that it was fair to the Registrant and also in the public interest to hear the matter today.

Background
7. On 6 January 2023 following the execution of a warrant by police at the Registrant’s home address, a number of digital devices were seized on which a substantial number of category A and B moving indecent images of children were accessible.

8. Upon viewing the devices, there was also evidence that two moving images had been distributed on 26 August 2020. In addition, there was evidence that specific search terms related to the type of image found had been used.

9. The Registrant subsequently appeared in Court in relation to the indecent images and having initially pleaded not guilty in December 2023, entered guilty pleas on 16 April 2024 before HHJ Blake at Reading Crown Court to the offences as set out within paragraph 1 of the allegation above.

10. Having been convicted of the above five offences, the Registrant was sentenced on 31 May 2024 to 28 months immediate custody. The ancillary orders handed down by HHJ Blake were:
• Registration under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from 31 May 2024 for 10 years
• A sexual harm prevention order imposed until 30 May 2034

11. The Registrant was released from custody on 31 July 2025 and is serving the remainder of his sentence on licence in the community.

Submissions
12. Mr Maughan submitted that the certified copy of the certificate of conviction was evidence of the fact of conviction and that the conviction ground of impairment was thereby proved by reason of that document. Mr Maughan submitted that Rule 10 1(d) of the Rules permitted the Panel to rely on the certificate of conviction as evidence both of the fact of conviction and the underlying facts that led to that conviction.

Legal Advice
13. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. She endorsed the submissions of Mr Maughan regarding the legal position and advised the Panel that the Rules state that a Certificate of Conviction shall be admissible as proof of the conviction and facts behind it.

Decision on Facts
14. The Panel had regard to the certified copy of the certificate of conviction and was satisfied as to the fact of the conviction. Whilst the Registrant has provided additional context to the conviction in his correspondence with the HCPC, the Panel noted that he has not disputed the conviction itself, and indeed, pleaded guilty in Crown Court.

Decision on Grounds
15. The Panel, having been satisfied as to the fact of the Registrant’s conviction, found the statutory ground of conviction proved.

Submissions on Impairment
16. Mr Maughan submitted that the Registrant is currently impaired on both the personal and public component as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

17. He submitted that there would be a risk to children that the Registrant may be required to be in contact with, and that possession of images such as led to his conviction brings the profession into disrepute. The fundamental tenet of trust had been breached. There was, in his submission, a risk of repetition of the conduct.

Decision on Impairment
18. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and the Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations’. The Panel’s task is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence.

19. The Panel is mindful of the forward-looking test for impairment and the need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the Registrant’s conviction brings the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in the profession.

20. The Panel, after reviewing all the evidence in this case, and the advice from the Legal Assessor, has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In reaching its decision, the Panel bore in mind that it must take into account two broad components:
a. the personal component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the Registrant concerned; and
b. the public component: protecting service users, declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour, and maintaining public confidence in the profession.

21. The Panel began by considering the personal component. It took into account the limited information from the Registrant in his email of 9 October 2025,
“I have served my time in prison and am now trying to rebuild a life for myself free of drugs while seeking therapy and support for my offending/addictions…I’m truly sorry for ending up on drugs and committing these awful crimes which betrayed my own principles and values. There is no excuse for what I did but I do believe I would never have acted out of character and so terribly without the influence of drugs. I have been able to maintain abstinent from my drug addiction to crystal methamphetamine since my arrest and will never return to the dark path it led me down.”

22. The Panel however had no evidence to support these assertions. The Registrant had provided no evidence of any rehabilitation he may have undertaken or any information about the support he now has in place to prevent any re-offending. The Panel however took into account that there was no evidence that the Registrant has, to date, caused direct harm to patients.

23. The Panel found that the Registrant had demonstrated limited insight into the impact of his offending behaviour on the victims and has provided no reflection on his part in perpetuating abuse against these very young victims. The Panel considered that the Registrant had attempted to minimise his responsibility by suggesting that it was his drug addiction that was the cause of his behaviour. This limited insight meant that the Panel could not rule out a risk of repetition, notwithstanding the Registrant’s expressed desire to move on with his life and an assertion that he was free from his addiction.

24. The Panel accepted that there was an expression of regret and remorse and an understanding that these were serious crimes. However, there was limited reflection on the implications for trust in the profession beyond an acceptance that it was likely that the Panel would make an order for strike off.

25. The Panel had regard to the sentencing remarks and noted that the Registrant denied any sexual interest in children. However, this was not fully accepted by the Court and was reflected in the sexual harm prevention order made for a period of 10 years. The Panel considered that the nature of the offences which involved accessing moving images and engaging in conversations about child abuse were further evidence that the Registrant did have such an interest.

26. As such, the Panel considered that there was an inherent risk to children, particularly unaccompanied children, with whom he could come into contact in practice as a Paramedic. It followed that the Registrant is currently impaired in terms of the personal component which overlaps with the first element of the public component: the need to protect service users. It would be incompatible with the HCPC’s duty to protect the public if a finding of impairment were not made in respect of a person whom the criminal justice system has determined poses a risk to children.

27. The Panel went on to consider the public component as it related to maintaining professional standards and public confidence in the profession concerned. The Panel accepted the submissions of Mr Maughan that the Registrant’s conduct has brought the profession into disrepute and that his conduct has seriously damaged the public’s trust both in him and the profession more broadly. The Panel took into account that practice as a Paramedic involves treating vulnerable people and children in their homes and in the community. Members of the public who knew what the Registrant had been convicted of would not trust him to treat their children.

28. The Panel concluded that a finding of current impairment is required on both personal and public components given the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s offending. The exploitation of children through the making, distribution, or possession of indecent images is always abhorrent, however these offences were committed by a registered paramedic who poses an ongoing risk to the public and public confidence in the profession would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment was not made.

Decision on Sanction
29. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Maughan who outlined the purpose of sanction and referred the Panel to what he considered to be pertinent sections of the Sanctions Policy.

30. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel that the full range of sanctions is available to it as this was a case involving a criminal conviction. She advised the Panel that it should bear in mind its duty to protect members of the public and also the public interest which includes maintaining and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, maintaining the reputation of the profession, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it was entitled to take into consideration factors that it considered to be aggravating and mitigating circumstances when deciding what sanction would be sufficient in the public interest.

31. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. She reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. She advised the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the principles in the cases of Fleishmann Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and Patel Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council (Patel) [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin).

32. The Panel had due regard to the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has considered any aggravating and mitigating factors and has borne in mind the principle of proportionality. It was aware that it was required to determine the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct, having regard to any mitigating and aggravating features, and then work through the sanctions starting with the least restrictive, imposing no more restrictive a sanction than was necessary to manage the risks it had identified to the public and the public interest.

33. The Panel began by considering whether there were any particular aggravating or mitigating factors. It identified the following mitigating factors; that the Registrant had a previously unblemished career and he had expressed remorse and pleaded guilty to the offences.

34. As to aggravating features, the Panel noted the nature of the images that the Registrant had not only viewed but distributed. These were said to involve moving images of abuse of very young children who were distressed and in pain. Children are a particularly vulnerable population, and some children in the images had been as young as two years old. The Panel considered there had been a lack of remediation and insight, with the Registrant continuing to minimise his responsibility for the conduct and there was a failure to appreciate the impact of his conduct on his victims.

35. The Panel determined, in accordance with the Sanctions Policy, that offences relating to indecent images of children are a very serious matter. The Panel had identified at the impairment stage the serious impact of such offences on public confidence in the profession and the risks the Registrant poses to the public.

36. The Panel accepted Mr Maughan’s submission, as reflected in the Sanctions Policy, that it is generally not appropriate for registrants to return to unrestricted practice whilst they are serving their sentence. Here, the Registrant is still serving his custodial sentence, albeit on licence and remains subject to notification and registration requirements.

37. Given the serious nature of the Registrant’s conviction and the associated risks to the public and the public interest, the Panel determined that taking no action or imposing a caution order would be insufficient to protect the public, nor would it reflect the seriousness of the offence and hence meet the public interest.

38. Similarly, the Panel considered a conditions of practice order was not appropriate given that the offence was not linked to practice as a Paramedic, nor would such an order meet the public interest in view of the serious nature of the offences. In addition, the Sanctions Policy explicitly states that such an order is unlikely to be appropriate in cases involving indecent images of children.

39. The Panel then considered a suspension order. It noted that according to the Sanctions Policy, such an order may be appropriate where the concerns are serious, but the registrant has insight and there is evidence to suggest they are likely to remedy their failings. The Panel considered that these aspects were lacking in the present case. The Registrant failed to provide any evidence of rehabilitation and he had failed to recognise the impact of his offending on his victims and the seriously damaging effect such conduct inevitably has on public trust and confidence in the profession.

40. The Panel had regard to the guidance in the Sanctions Policy as to when striking off may be appropriate. This is a sanction of last resort for persistent, deliberate or reckless acts, including possession of indecent images of children. 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”.

41. The Panel determined that the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending, combined with his lack of insight and remediation, means that his conduct is incompatible with continued registration. The Panel considered that the Registrant had not meaningfully engaged in the regulatory process and it concluded that there is no evidence that the Registrant is able or willing to resolve the concerns.

42. The Panel determined that a striking off order is the only order that is sufficient to protect the public, uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Peter J Burningham from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

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

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
The Panel considered the application by the HCPC for an Interim Order to cover the appeal period. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been served with the appropriate notice of the Panel’s powers to consider an interim order in the Notice of hearing dated 20 August and 30 September 2025.

The Panel considered it was appropriate to proceed in his absence for all the reasons outlined in its earlier determination.

The HCPC’s application is made on the 2 statutory grounds as follows:
• it is necessary for the protection of members of the public
• it is otherwise in the public interest.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel considered that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with its earlier findings and would not protect the public against the risk of repetition. The Panel considered that the period of 18 months was required to cover the likely length of time required for any appeal to be heard and determined.

The Panel noted that such an order may have a detrimental effect on the Registrant however, this was outweighed by the need to protect the public from the risk of repetition identified.

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 to cover the length of any appeal.

History of Hearings for Peter J Burningham