Steven Douglas

Preliminary Matters

Registrant’s Application for his Former Surname to be Redacted

1. The Panel noted the Registrant’s request in his email of 6 September 2025 that any mention of his former surname be redacted. The Panel invited submissions from Ms Evans. She stated that the Registrant’s surname had not been redacted from the bundle as to do so was likely to cause confusion to the Panel, who probably would not understand why there were two names in the Certificate of Conviction. The HCPC’s position was that both surnames should be in the documentation. The application was otherwise a matter for the Panel.

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and viewed this as an application by the Registrant that any references to his former surname be in private. It was aware it needed to conduct a balancing exercise between the Registrant’s interest in privacy, on the one hand, and the public interest in transparency and open justice, on the other.

3. The Panel noted that the Registrant had given no explanation behind this request, but elsewhere had referred to changing his name to protect his family. There was no mention of children being family members. The Panel determined that, in the absence of a clear explanation as to why the interests of family members’ right to privacy should weigh more heavily than the public interest in open justice, it should refuse the Registrant’s application. It determined that public interest in the entire hearing being in public outweighed any interests the Registrant and his family members might have in redacting his former surname.

Service and Proceeding in Absence

4. 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 1 September 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 3 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules 2003 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. As such, the Panel determined that good service had been effected.

5. Ms Evans made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She 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.

6. The Panel was aware 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”.

7. The Panel reviewed the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC since service of notice, and found that the Registrant is aware of the hearing but sees no point in attending. He considers that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. He has waived his right 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. Indeed, the Registrant had expressed a wish to get the matter concluded.

Background

8. On 25 March 2022 the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC, stating that he had been charged with a criminal offence the previous day. He did not provide details of the offence, but attached a document headed: Liberation from Police Custody for Court Appearance by way of undertaking. It stated that he had been arrested on charges of “CMC Government Scotland Act 1982 s52A(1)”. The form stated that the Registrant was to appear at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 20 April 2022 and set out conditions he was required to comply with in the intervening period, which included not having contact with any child under 18 and conditions relating to internet use.

9. In due course the Registrant pleaded guilty to the charge set out in the Allegation above. He was convicted on 18 August 2023 and sentenced on 29 September 2023. He was not given a custodial sentence, albeit that the sentencing judge stated that the custody threshold had been met. His sentence comprised a community pay back order with a supervision requirement of three years, 300 hours unpaid work, and a restriction of liberty order with electronic monitoring for six months. The Registrant was to me made subject to notification requirements for five years.

10. The Registrant updated the HCPC following his conviction.

11. The matter went to a panel of the Investigating Committee on 26 July 2024 which determined there was a case to answer.

12. The Registrant emailed the HCPC on 6 September 2025. He had changed his surname and requested that his previous surname was redacted from any documents relating to the hearing. He also stated he would not be attending the hearing as it would not be productive to do so when there “is a clear outcome”.

13. The Registrant provided a short statement addressed to the Panel, in which he stated that he had tried to remove his name from the Register but the HCPC had rejected his requests, despite guidance which says that striking off is appropriate for this type of offence. He acknowledged he had not engaged with the HCPC but stated that doing so would not have changed anything. The Registrant also stated “I would like to state on the record however that despite the conviction, I do not accept any (legal) responsibility for this offence.”

14. The Registrant sent a further email on 7 September 2025 as follows:

“Due to technical errors with the extraction of data from devices, Police Scotland’s cybercrime team were unable to provide any “start date” for the index offence. They used the date of purchase of the device which extends to 2013 some time ago and is not an indication of extensive offending - merely limits in technical data extraction. However to reiterate my earlier point of that whilst I have accepted the legal responsibility for what has happened - the reality is such that I still deny wholly the offences”.

Submissions

15. Ms Evans submitted that the Panel could be satisfied as to the fact of conviction and that the conviction ground of impairment was thereby proved. In relation to impairment, she submitted, in accordance with Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), that the Registrant is currently impaired in the sense that he had:

• in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act as so to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and
• in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and
• in the past committed a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and/or is liable to do so in the future.

16. She 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 her submission, a risk of repetition of the conduct.

Legal Advice

17. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It was aware that:

• The Conduct and Competence Committee rules state that a Certificate of Conviction or extract of conviction in Scotland shall be admissible as proof of the conviction and facts behind it;
• The Panel was not to look behind the conviction – General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627;
• Conviction is its own ground of impairment (Article 22 Health Professions Order 2001);
• The question for the panel was whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of conviction, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned;
• The formulation of assessment of impairment as set out in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) may assist;
• When considering the public interest, the Panel should take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the Registrant’s actions bring the profession into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession.

Decision on Facts

18. The Panel had regard to the Full Extract Conviction Report and was satisfied as to the fact of the conviction. Whilst the Registrant does not appear to accept the matters behind the conviction, the Panel noted that he has not disputed the conviction itself, and indeed, pleaded guilty in the Sheriff Court.

Decision on Grounds

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

Decision on Impairment

20. 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 6 September 2025:

“I have engaged well with the services I am legally required to and operate at a very low risk - so much so that the court has been applied to for an early discharge from the supervision requirement. By the time the panel convenes- (sic) it will have been more than 2 years since sentence was passed”.

22. The Panel however had no evidence to support these assertions. The Registrant had provided no evidence of any rehabilitation he may have undertaken. 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 no insight into the impact of his offending behaviour, and indeed, continues to deny, at points, “(legal) responsibility” for it. This denial in the face of a guilty plea and conviction meant that the Panel could not rule out a risk of repetition, notwithstanding the Registrant’s expressed desire to move on with his life. This denial appeared to have prevented the Registrant from showing remorse or taking steps to demonstrate that he understood the gravity of his past conduct (save saying that he expected to be struck off) and its implications for trust in the profession.

24. The Panel had regard to the sentencing report, and noted that the Registrant strongly denied any sexual interest in children. However, the Registrant had not provided any explanation of this assertion to the Panel, and the Panel considered that such a stance was incongruent with the nature of the offence he had been convicted of after a guilty plea, which included accessing images over many years and possession of over 2,000 images, of which 688 were category A. Further, the Panel could not take any assurance from this assertion because the Registrant had also maintained a denial of the offence in emails sent for the Panel’s attention.

25. As such, 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.

26. 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 Ms Evans 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 feel a sense of revulsion and would not want him to enter their homes, or to receive treatment from him. They certainly would not trust him to treat their children.

27. The Panel concluded that a finding of current impairment is required on both personal and public components in the public interest to mark the unacceptability of the Registrant’s offending. The exploitation of children through the making, distribution, or possession of indecent images is always intolerable, but when such offences are committed by professionals, whom the public must trust to treat their children, public confidence in the profession is seriously undermined.

Decision on Sanction

28. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Evans who outlined the purpose of sanction and referred the Panel to what she considered to be pertinent sections of the Sanctions Policy.

29. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. 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.

30. The Panel began by considering whether there were any particular aggravating or mitigating factors. It identified one mitigating feature; that there had been no direct harm to service users. As to aggravating features, the Panel noted:

• The duration of the offending, which took place over a number of years. Whilst the exact period was contested (the Registrant saying that the police could not identify a start date so used the date of purchase of the laptop), the number of images, well over 2,000, a proportion of which had been accessed more than once, indicated that the offending had likely taken place over a substantial period of time;
• Children are a particularly vulnerable population, and some children in the images had been as young as one year old;
• The Registrant’s actions were pre-meditated and involved a degree of planning;
• There were a significant number of category A images;
• There had been a lack of apology, remediation and insight, with the Registrant continuing to deny the conduct relating to the conviction.

31. As is apparent from the foregoing, the aggravating features far outweigh the mitigation. 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. The aggravating features made the matter more serious and the sanction would need to reflect that.

32. The Panel accepted Ms Evans’ 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 community pay back order and remains subject to notification requirements (meaning that certain people can request information about his offending and he is subject to Multi-Agency Protection Arrangements).

33. 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.

34. Similarly, 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 offence and the Registrant’s lack of insight and lack of commitment to resolving the concerns. In addition, the Sanctions Policy explicitly states that such an order is unlikely to be appropriate in cases involving indecent images of children.

35. 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. Both these were entirely lacking in the present case. Not only had the Registrant failed to provide any evidence of rehabilitation, but he had failed to recognise the impact of his offending on the reputation of the profession and the seriously damaging effect such conduct inevitably has on public trust and confidence in the profession.

36. 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”.

37. The Panel determined that the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending, combined with his lack of insight and remediation, indeed his denial of responsibility for what he admitted to, meant that his conduct is incompatible with continued registration. His actions were deliberate, involved planning, and took place repeatedly over an extended period of time. His lack of acceptance of the conduct of which he has been convicted, and his lack of meaningful engagement in the regulatory process, led the Panel to conclude that members of the public, aware of the facts, would never be able to trust him as a professional and as such his actions have seriously undermined confidence in, and the reputation of, the profession.

38. 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.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the Registrant off the Register.

Right of Appeal

The Registrant may appeal to the Court of Session against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against him.

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 the Registrant. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if he appeals, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Application

1. The Panel then considered an application by Ms Evans for an interim suspension order to cover the appeal period before the final order comes into effect.

2. Ms Evans submitted that an interim order should be made to cover the appeal period, which mirrors the Panel’s findings on impairment. She submitted that an interim suspension order for 18 months was necessary to cover the time taken to deal with any appeal.

3. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it could make an interim order if doing so was necessary for protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should bear in mind its previous findings and then consider whether, in view of those and the risks identified, one or more grounds for an interim order are met. If an interim order is considered necessary, the Panel should also consider the appropriate form and duration of the order.

4. The Panel considered whether to impose an interim order. It was mindful of its earlier findings and in particular its decision that the Registrant’s conduct is incompatible with continued registration. The Panel decided that it would be incompatible with that finding if there was no interim order in place.

5. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that an interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest. It made the Interim Order for 18 months, to allow for any appeal. When the appeal period expires, this Interim Order will come to an end unless an appeal has been filed with the Court of Session. If there is no appeal, the final order shall take effect when the appeal period expires.

Decision

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

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

History of Hearings for Steven Douglas