Kevin Baker

Preliminary Matters

Application to amend the allegation

1. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC applied to amend the allegation to incorporate the alleged sexually motivated behaviour at particular 4 into the misconduct allegation at particular 5. It was submitted that this was a minor typographical error which would not materially affect the substance of the allegation.

2. Ms Rowan did not object to the request.

3. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on Case Management, Directions and Preliminary Hearings. The Panel was reminded that the HCPC’s rules are silent on amendments, but it is within their jurisdiction to consider such applications. It is open to the Panel to make amendments to allegations to ensure that they are fit for purpose and constitute a fair and proper representation of the HCPC’s case as revealed by evidence.

4. The principle factors the Panel must consider are whether any unfairness or prejudice arises should it permit the amendments.

5. The Panel considered the proposed amendment to be more specific, it clarifies the detail of what is alleged and better particularises the concerns. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendment was fair and could be made without any unfairness or injustice to the Registrant. Accordingly, the application to amend was granted with particular 5 reading as follows:-
‘The matters set out in particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4 above constitute misconduct’.
Admissions

6.The Registrant admitted the factual particulars of 1 and 2, and additionally 4 and 5, so far as they related to particulars 1 and 2.

7. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC submitted that it would not be necessary, due to the full and frank admissions, to call Colleague A or KM. Ms Rowan on behalf of the Registrant agreed with this and stated that the Registrant understood the implications of the admissions made.

8. The Panel considered the position and determined that it would be assisted by asking the witnesses some questions to understand the context and seriousness of the concerns.

Background

9. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Paramedic. At the material time, the Registrant was employed by the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the Trust”). He resigned from this post in March 2022.

10. On 18 October 2021, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant, confirming that he had been suspended from work pending an investigation into inappropriate conduct towards a member of staff (Colleague A).

11. The HCPC subsequently contacted the Trust which confirmed this, providing details of its investigation. The Trust stated that concerns were raised in the first instance by one of the Registrant’s female colleagues (Colleague A) and after this, details of another female colleague who had made similar complaints regarding the Registrant’s conduct (Colleague C) were investigated.

12. In respect of Colleague A, it is alleged that, having obtained her phone number via a WhatsApp group chat, the Registrant began to message Colleague A. Messages began in October 2020, and by January 2021, it is alleged that the messages became more personal and of a sexual nature. It is alleged that, over time, the messages became increasingly frequent and more overtly sexual. Between January and August 2021, it is alleged that the Registrant sent over 360 messages to Colleague A. During this period, the Registrant would also ask questions and make comments of a sexual nature to Colleague A when they worked together.

13. On 02 June 2021, at a residential training weekend, it is alleged that the Registrant invited Colleague A to stay in his hotel room.

14. In respect of Colleague C, it is alleged that, having known each other previously, the Registrant’s behaviour towards Colleague C changed when they began working together. It is alleged that this initially manifested itself in the Registrant sending unwarranted and unreciprocated messages to Colleague C.

15. It is further alleged that, when changing in the shared locker room, the Registrant asked Colleague C if he could see her breasts. It is then alleged that, on several occasions, the Registrant asked to touch Colleague C’s breast or breasts.

16. Following the allegations from his colleagues, the Trust opened an investigation into the Registrant’s alleged actions. In March 2022, prior to the conclusion of that investigation, the Registrant resigned from the Trust.

Evidence

17. The Panel reviewed the documentary evidence contained within the 524-page hearing bundle, the Registrant’s bundles of 10-pages and 9-pages. It also heard live evidence on Affirmation from Colleague C, Colleague A, KM and the Registrant.

18. The Panel admitted the statement of Colleague C in evidence and heard evidence from her on Affirmation. When questioned, Colleague C confirmed that she knew the Registrant more than some of her other colleagues due to being friends with his wife from her previous employment, and she confirmed that she and the Registrant did not socialise together away from work.

19. Colleague C stated that she and the Registrant would spend long hours together at work if they were together in the ambulance and whilst at the station at Cody Road. She confirmed that they spent time chatting and that she considered him to be a friend at that time. Colleague C stated that most of the chat was work related, she preferred to keep her work and personal life separate, however, she did discuss her personal relationship with her partner with the Registrant. Colleague C accepted that she had been going through a difficult time with her husband at that time. Colleague C indicated that either one of them might have instigated the conversation, and that she now considered it was inappropriate for the Registrant to ask the questions he did about her husband.

20. Colleague C confirmed that she did not think anything of the messages at that time as they were mainly work related and she had similar chats with other colleagues. She stated that the situation became difficult after the Registrant’s behaviour in the workplace towards her changed in late 2018 and early 2019. She stated that her whole perception of the relationship changed at that point, and she stopped engaging with him in the same way.

21. Colleague C confirmed that she had not found any individual message from the Registrant to be inappropriate, and she referred to the messages as then not being responded to by her, or her responses being much shorter. Colleague C confirmed that there could be gaps in their communication and she identified messages where she had not responded at all. She indicated that previously if the Registrant had asked what he was doing at work the following day she would have gone out of her way to find out and let him know.

22. Colleague C confirmed that she had not seen the Trust Investigation Interview notes from 22 December 2021 until she received the hearing bundle a couple of weeks prior to this hearing. She did not agree that the notes were an accurate account of what she said and indicated that her responses had been ‘paraphrased’.

23. Colleague C was asked about the incident in the locker room when she was getting changed and the Registrant walked in. Colleague C was clear that the Registrant had not asked on this occasion to see her breasts as they ‘were already on display’. She could not recall specifically what he said however she recalls it was along the lines of ‘nice boobs’. Colleague C confirmed that she was aware that anyone could walk in while she was changing and she took that risk.

24. Colleague C stated that there were a few occasions on which the Registrant made comments about her breasts, and she brushed it off as ‘laddish behaviour’ and banter. However, there came a point when she was getting pretty fed up with it and she verbally reported her concerns to a team leader, no action was taken.

25. Colleague C confirmed that the Registrant made comments about her breasts on multiple occasions when no one else was present. She stated that she had believed that she and the Registrant were friends for a lot of that time. Colleague C stated that she confronted the Registrant regarding his behaviour towards the end of 2018 and after that her messages were not as friendly.

26. Colleague C stated that there was a laddish culture at Cody Road, and she raised her concerns on multiple occasions without any action being taken. She stated that she felt strongly that the culture issues needed to change, but that she had never made a formal complaint whilst she was working there as she felt unsupported, and it would not have been a good prospect for her. Colleague C stated that she left Cody Road around three years ago

27. Colleague C stated that she felt frustrated that there had been a new incident with another colleague when she had reported it and nothing had happened. Colleague C confirmed that her evidence had not been exaggerated and that she had reported what she had experienced.

28. Colleague C stated that in hindsight the Registrant couldn’t have been her friend, or he would not have treated her like that. Colleague C stated that the Registrant was a popular member of staff, and she felt that if she said anything it would be an even harder place to work.

29. Colleague C confirmed that whilst there was a laddish culture of ‘banter’ she did not receive comments from anyone else about her breasts. She stated that the banter ‘crossed the line’ and was not suitable for a professional environment.

30. Colleague C confirmed that the behaviour did not impact on her clinical care as she felt that she’d dealt with it and ‘put it to bed’.

31. Colleague A gave evidence on affirmation. She confirmed that the messages made her feel uncomfortable to the point where she would avoid working with the Registrant whenever possible. Colleague A did not consider that the uncomfortable working environment had any impact on service users.

32. KM gave evidence on affirmation and confirmed that the notes from the investigation interview with Colleague C on 22 December 2021 would be a verbatim account rather than a summary and that VP was the note taker. He stated that usually the notes would be sent to Colleague C to approve and be signed, and he acknowledged that these notes had not been signed, and he was unable to confirm why this was.

33. The Panel heard evidence on affirmation from the Registrant in relation to particular 3iii after determining the submission of no case to answer on particulars 3i and 3ii.

34. The Registrant outlined his employment history with the Trust and gave the Panel details of the types of work the HART team would be involved in. He stated that it was very stressful and there was lots of pressure due to the higher rate of trauma and patients found deceased. The Registrant referred to the environment at Cody Road Station as being ‘ambulance service humour’, he stated that it was not a terrible environment, and he enjoyed working there.

35. The Registrant stated that the pandemic changed his way of working, due to his diabetes, he was placed in a non-patient facing role at the Nightingale Hospital. The Registrant indicated that his interactions with his colleagues from the HART team stopped.

36. The Registrant confirmed that he knew Colleague C from before she started working within the HART team, and he considered her to be a friend. He stated that he enjoyed working with her and the shifts would pass quickly and without incident. The Registrant confirmed that they would chat about many things including family life and that the WhatsApp messages were usually work related and general in nature. The Registrant stated that he was not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with Colleague C and was not attracted to her.

37. The Registrant denied asking to see or touch Colleague C’s breasts and was unable to provide an explanation as to why she would make it up.

38. The Registrant indicated that he thought nothing of Colleague C not responding to messages as she may have been on shift or busy. He stated that he did not notice any change in their relationship and considered that any change may have been around the time Colleague C left the station and he may not have seen her as often.

Submission of No Case to Answer

39. Ms Rowan on behalf of the Registrant made a submission of ‘no case to answer’ in relation to particulars 3i and 3ii. It was submitted in relation to 3i that there had been no evidence from Colleague C that the messages were unwanted or unreciprocated and Ms Rowan reminded the Panel that Colleague C had confirmed in oral evidence that she did not consider any of the messages to be inappropriate. Ms Rowan identified that Colleague C did not express any concerns in relation to the messages themselves and that they were provided to reflect a change in the relationship.

40. In relation to particular 3ii Ms Rowan referred the Panel to the evidence of Colleague C in which she was clear that the Registrant had not asked to see her breasts on the one occasion when he walked in on her in the locker room in a state of undress. Ms Rowan submitted that on that occasion Colleague C did not recall exactly what was said to her by the Registrant and therefore there was no evidence upon which the Panel could find this particular proved.

41. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC opposed the submission. In relation to particular 3i Mr Slack identified that there was some evidence that the messages were unwanted and unreciprocated as demonstrated by the lack of any response or much shorter responses from Colleague C. Mr Slack further submitted that it was the persistent messaging that was unwanted.

42. In considering particular 3ii Mr Slack submitted that there was evidence in the statement of Colleague C that the Registrant had asked to see her breasts, and that it was a technicality to suggest that the reference to the locker room incident was fatal to the matter being found proven. Mr Slack submitted that it was open to the Panel to take a different reading of the particular, and that it was within its’ power to amend the allegation up to any findings of fact.

43. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Submissions of No Case to Answer’ which states ‘No useful purpose is served by a Panel continuing proceedings if, based upon the case which it has been put before the Panel there is no real prospect of the HCPC proving the facts alleged’.

44. The Panel was referred to the test laid down in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.

45. The Panel looked at particular 3i and was of the view that there was some evidence of the Registrant sending Colleague C messages. Colleague C in her evidence was very clear that she took no issue with the content of the messages and she did not consider any of them to be inappropriate. Colleague C did not state that the messages were unwanted or unreciprocated. She stated that she supplied details of the messages to support the change in the relationship with the Registrant. The Panel found Colleague C to be a credible witness who was clear in her evidence.

46. The Panel concluded that the evidence to support this particular was so vague and tenuous that a properly directed tribunal could not find it proven.

47. The Panel next looked at particular 3ii and was satisfied that there was some evidence of the Registrant asking to see Colleague C’s breasts. However, the allegation, as drafted, was very specific in relation to the occasion on which it was alleged to have occurred.

48. Colleague C was very clear in her oral evidence that on the day the Registrant walked in on her in the locker room her breasts were already showing, and she could not specifically recall what the Registrant said to her, but it was something along the lines of ‘nice boobs’.

49. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that there was “no case to answer” in relation to particulars 3i and 3ii.

50. The Panel did not consider it appropriate at this stage in the hearing, to utilise its case management powers to amend the allegation of its own volition, to fit the evidence, as this would cause unfairness in the proceedings.

Decision on Facts

51. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC who invited the Panel to make findings in relation to the facts at this stage taking into account the full admissions made by the Registrant to some of the particulars of the allegation. The Panel also received submissions from Ms Rowan on behalf of the Registrant.

52. The Panel referred to all of the written and oral evidence in the case to determine whether each particular of the allegation was found proved or not.

53. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.

54. The Panel was advised to look at each particular of the allegation independently and in reaching its decision consider whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, assess the oral and written evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and attach such weight as they see fit to each piece of evidence.

55. The Panel was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ which states ‘an admission of a fact is sufficient to prove that fact’. The Panel was advised that it can find a fact proved by virtue of that admission without receiving further evidence, however it should be satisfied that the admission is unequivocal, the Registrant fully understands what the allegation is and the implications of admitting it. The Panel was aware of the importance of it being provided with all relevant information to enable it to understand the context and seriousness of the case, so that even when facts are admitted, it can make informed decisions regarding impairment and sanction, if appropriate.

56. The Panel was aware that in considering sexual motivation it should make findings of fact about what happened before determining the Registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of the behaviour in question and that sexual motivation can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence.

57. The Panel was referred to the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), which states ‘In determining sexual motivation, Panels must decide whether the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship’.

58. The Panel was also referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’ and considered the following factors:-
• The character of the conduct (i.e. is it overtly sexual, e.g. the touching of sexual organs);
• Any evidence regarding consent; and
• The plausibility of any alternative explanation for the conduct.

59. The Panel was reminded that where the allegation has been drafted as the Registrant's conduct being "sexual" rather than "sexually motivated", it need not make a finding on what the Registrant's state of mind was in relation to the conduct, only whether the conduct was, in itself, sexual.
Particular 1 is found proved

60. The Panel considered the written evidence within the bundle from Colleague A and KM as well as the oral evidence from Colleague A on affirmation. The Panel also took account of the statement from the Registrant, and the admission made during the hearing when the Registrant was legally represented.

61. The Panel was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before it to prove particular 1 on the balance of probabilities.
Particular 2 is found proved

62. The Panel considered the written evidence within the bundle from Colleague A and KM as well as the oral evidence from Colleague A. The Panel also considered the statement from the Registrant and the admission made during the hearing when the Registrant was legally represented.

63. The Panel was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before it to prove particular 2 on the balance of probabilities.
Particular 3iii is found proved

64. The Panel considered the written evidence within the bundle from Colleague C and KM, as well as their oral evidence on affirmation.

65. The Panel considered Colleague C to be clear, consistent and credible in her account in oral evidence. She immediately accounted for the inconsistencies in the Trust investigation interview notes by indicating that she had not seen those notes previously or agreed to their content. She stated that she considered the notes to be ‘paraphrased’ and not a contemporaneous account.

66. Whilst KM confirmed that it would be ‘usual’ for a verbatim note to have been taken, and that the notes would be sent to the complainant to approve, there was no evidence that this was the case on this occasion. The evidence provided by KM was not what the Panel would have expected of an investigator, he was unable to demonstrate that the notes had been sent to Colleague C for approval and there was no signature on them to indicate Colleague C’s endorsement. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague C in relation to the Trust investigation interview notes.

67. Colleague C was clear in her evidence that the Registrant made repeated comments to feel her breasts, which she initially laughed off before becoming fed up. Colleague C described reporting the behaviour of the Registrant to various team leaders without any action being taken. She stated that the ‘laddish culture’ and popularity of the Registrant made it difficult for her to formalise any complaint.

68. The Panel noted that Colleague C was approached by the Trust to make a statement once Colleague A raised concerns, this supports the assertion that managers were aware of the issues between her and the Registrant at an earlier stage.

69. Colleague C confirmed that the comments were always made when they were alone.

70. The Panel preferred the oral and written evidence of Colleague C which was largely consistent in the accounts that the Registrant had asked on a number of occasions to feel her breasts. There is no suggestion that Colleague C has a motive to be untruthful. Any inconsistency can perhaps be explained away by the passage of time since the incidents occurred.

71. The Panel was satisfied on balance that the Registrant did ask if he could feel the breasts of Colleague C. The Panel found this particular proved.
Particular 4 is found proved

72. The Panel went on to consider whether the proven facts (3iii) and those admitted (1 and 2) were sexual in nature and / or sexually motivated. The Panel noted that the Registrant made an admission in relation to the latter, and this element is found proved.

73. The Panel reviewed the oral and written evidence. In considering particular 3iii the Panel was of the view that asking to feel a colleague’s breasts was clearly sexual in nature. It is overtly sexual to refer to a female colleagues’ breasts, and despite the ‘laddish culture’ at Cody Road Station, Colleague C was clear that comments such as these were not used by any other colleague towards her.

74. The Panel found that asking to feel a female colleague’s breasts could only be interpreted as sexual in nature and this element is found proved.

75. The Panel went on to consider whether the comments were ‘sexually motivated’ and asked itself whether the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

76. The Panel found that the comments were persistent towards Colleague C, came only from the Registrant, and that they stopped once she had spoken with the Registrant. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Registrant gained sexual gratification from his comments, in the context of how they were made when they were alone, taking into account the character of the conduct, the lack of any evidence regarding consent and the lack of any plausible alternative explanation.

77. There was no suggestion that the Registrant was pursuing a future sexual relationship with Colleague C as the comments did not advance beyond that.

78. The Panel was satisfied on balance that the comments in relation to particular 3iii were sexual in nature and was sexually motivated because they were made in pursuit of sexual gratification.
Decision on Grounds

79. The Panel went on to consider whether or not the facts admitted and found proved amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct, which is a matter of judgment for it.

80. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC and from Ms Rowan on behalf of the Registrant.

81. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant had breached the following standard set out in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (2016):
‘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’.

82. The advice from the Legal Assessor was that misconduct has no definitive meaning. The Panel was referred to Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 where the Privy Council defined ‘misconduct’ as ‘a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances’ and such falling short must be serious. The Privy Council highlighted that misconduct must be linked to the profession and considered "serious professional misconduct" rather than just any misconduct.

83. In Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC (Admin), Collins J emphasised seriousness, at paragraph 31 of his judgment as ‘conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners’”.

84. The Panel noted the admission made by the Registrant in relation to misconduct applicable to Particulars 1 and 2.

85. The Panel considered that the sexually motivated behaviour occurred in relation to two colleagues over a prolonged period of time and demonstrated a pattern of behaviour. The Panel found that the Registrant had communicated unprofessionally with female colleagues on a number of occasions on a one-to-one basis, had demonstrated a lack of respect, and that the public would be shocked and troubled to learn of such behaviour.

86. The Panel also considered that the Registrant had been in a position of trust as both Colleague A and Colleague C were new to the unit at the time of the alleged misconduct. Also, Colleague A was still training in the role and had considerably less years of service compared to the Registrant. The Registrant was being overly familiar with a junior colleague in using sexualised language and behaviour in an attempt to initiate a future sexual relationship with her.

87. There is a clear power imbalance in the professional relationship between the Registrant and Colleague A, and an element of a breach of trust with both Colleague A and Colleague C is present with the Registrant failing to demonstrate respect for appropriate professional boundaries.

88. The Panel was of the view that the allegations admitted and found proved are serious in nature and fall far short of what would be expected in relation to the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016, which were the standards in place at the time of the misconduct in this case. The Panel considered that the Registrant was in breach of Standards 2.7 which states ‘You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites’, and 9.1 which states ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession’.

89. The Panel also considered the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics, 2014 which were applicable at the time of the misconduct and found that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the following standards;
• ‘3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and
professional conduct;
• 3.4 be able to maintain a high standard of professional effectiveness
by adopting strategies for physical and psychological self-care,
critical self-awareness, and by being able to maintain a safe
working environment;
• 8.1 be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and
non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction
and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others;
• 9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional
relationships as both an independent practitioner and
collaboratively as a member of a team’.

90. It is necessary for registered professionals to work in a way which inspires trust and confidence in service users and members of the public, the sexually motivated conduct in this case would undermine both.

91. The Panel determined that the facts admitted and found proved amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct as the Registrant’s behaviour fell far short of what was proper in the circumstances. The misconduct is serious and was sexually motivated.

92. The Panel was satisfied that the behaviour of the Registrant amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

93. The Panel was invited to review the Registrant’s reflective piece, and the Registrant gave evidence on affirmation. The Registrant acknowledged that he had made mistakes and had acted unprofessionally and stated that he had done his best to ensure it did not happen again.

94. The Panel was also referred to the previous statement from the Registrant dated 04 September 2025 which captured his feelings about the incidents with Colleague A. The Registrant stated that he felt very disappointed with himself and that there was no excuse for that behaviour. He acknowledged that Colleague A would feel upset and distressed and stated that he had completely misread the situation and he should never have sent the messages.

95. The Registrant stated that things at home were not good around the time of the incidents, and he became low and behaved in an unprofessional manner.

96. The Registrant stated that he had been working hard over the last four years to ensure that there was no risk of him falling into that behaviour again. He would not now message colleagues from work, and would walk away if something was occurring which shouldn’t be, or if there were conversations he didn’t want to be involved in.

97. The Registrant stated that he found counselling beneficial as he had become overwhelmed and he could then see where he’d made errors and reflect to ensure there was no repetition.

98. The Registrant indicated that he had undertaken online courses to better understand professional boundaries.

99. The Registrant outlined the responsibilities within his current employment and stated that he had no issues with colleagues and enjoyed working there.

100. The Registrant expressed remorse for the upset he had caused Colleague A and stated that if he had caused any upset to Colleague C, he was deeply sorry for that.

101. The Registrant was asked about the culture at Cody Road Station and stated it was ‘ambulance service humour’, which he was unable to expand upon, but he stated that it usually involved chat around work situations and was something that the majority of staff participated in.

102. The Registrant was asked about the impact of his actions on his colleagues, the wider team, service users and the public. He acknowledged that Colleagues A and C would be upset and stated that his actions may have had an impact on the wider team but that he had not spoken to anyone at Cody Road since he was suspended. The Registrant did not think that his actions had impacted service users and stated that the public would be disappointed that these incidents had happened as he had been unprofessional.

103. The Registrant stated that he resigned from the Trust prior to the internal investigation being concluded due to the issues going on at home, it all became too much, and he needed to focus on his family. He confirmed that he used some of his skills that he has developed as a Paramedic to run first aid courses and fire safety courses since he resigned from the Trust.

104. The Registrant confirmed that he may consider returning to the profession in the future if he were permitted.

105. When asked, the Registrant confirmed that he had not realised his behaviour was unwanted until the complaint was made.

106. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC submitted that, having found the facts proved, the Panel should find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. He submitted that inappropriate sexually motivated conduct over a prolonged period, which was not isolated in nature, brings the profession into disrepute, and public confidence in the profession would be impacted.

107. Mr Slack referred the Panel to the factors outlined in R (on the Application of Cohen) v. General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and outlined the factors highlighted in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant’s actions had the potential to place patients at unwarranted risk of harm, had brought the profession into disrepute, and had breached fundamental tenets of the profession.

108. Ms Rowan referred the Panel to the documentary evidence submitted on behalf of the Registrant and submitted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had caused a risk of harm to service users.

109. Ms Rowan referred the Panel to the Registrant’s reflections and his acceptance that his behaviour was unacceptable. It was submitted that the Registrant had remediated and there was no risk of repetition.

110. The Panel accepted legal advice and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public component and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time.

111. The panel considered the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said:
‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’

112. In considering the personal component the Panel was of the view that the sexually motivated behaviour, which is attitudinal in nature was more difficult to remediate.

113. The Panel noted that the Registrant had acknowledged his failings, had expressed some remorse and reflected on what he described as ‘misreading the situation’. The Panel considered that while the Registrant had shown some remediation, the depth of his reflections was concerning and self focussed as it failed to consider fully the impact on others. There were signs that the Registrant was attempting to minimise his actions and his culpability as his messages and comments were not reciprocated in the sexually motivated vein he had continuously pursued. There was no suggestion from the message exchange that Colleagues A or C were interested in the Registrant in a sexual way.

114. The Registrant failed to outline the practical steps he would take in the future to avoid repetition of his behaviours, other than ‘walking away’, which may not be a feasible option in a professional environment when crewed with a female colleague in an emergency situation.

115. Whilst the Registrant acknowledged that Colleagues A and C would be upset and distressed, he has failed to acknowledge the full impact of his actions on Colleagues A and C, the wider team and the public. In particular the Registrant stated in evidence ‘if I caused upset to Colleague C’, which demonstrates a lack of insight into his actions.

116. The Panel accepted that there was no actual harm caused to service users, and that the parties involved did not consider there was ever a risk of harm to service users. However, the Panel did note that, as a result of the Registrant’s actions, operational changes were required to ensure that Colleagues A and C were not working with the Registrant, and this had the potential to impact detrimentally on patient care and relationships within the wider team.

117. The Panel noted that the Registrant had attended some courses and had undertaken counselling, but he had failed to reflect on how his learning had changed his behaviours and actions so as to avoid repetition of the sexually motivated and unprofessional behaviour.

118. The Panel noted that the Registrant had last seen his counsellor 3 years ago, the report from the counsellor was not on letterhead, was not signed or dated and did not have a statement of truth. The Panel accordingly attached limited weight to this document.

119. The Panel took account of the positive references provided from the Registrant’s current employment, however it noted that this involved a different work environment to that experienced by a registered Paramedic. As such the lack of repetition was not convincing as the Registrant’s ability to spend up to 12 hours in the sole company of a female colleague had not been tested in a pressurised environment.

120. The Panel found that the Registrant has taken some remedial action but that it is limited.

121. In considering insight the Panel found that whilst the Registrant had demonstrated some insight it is very limited in nature and not fully developed.

122. Due to the limited remediation and insight demonstrated, the Panel cannot rule out the risk of repetition. Particularly in relation to the sexually motivated behaviours on a return to clinical practice where there may be a culture of ‘ambulance service humour’.

123. The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired.

124. The Panel next considered the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues’.

125. The Panel acknowledges the need to protect service users and colleagues and concludes that due to the lack of fully developed insight by the Registrant there is a risk of repetition which places colleagues and members of the public at risk of harm.

126. In assessing the risk of harm, the Panel finds that there was harm caused to Colleague’s A and C which involved emotional harm from unwanted sexual harassment. Due to the fact that the Panel cannot discount the risk of repetition, this would place colleagues and members of the public at risk of harm from the Registrant. The Panel found that sexually motivated behaviour within a team of Paramedics may result in a breakdown in trust amongst the wider team, and operational issues which has the potential to impact upon the safe and effective delivery of care to the wider public.

127. The Panel is under a duty to protect service users from harm and risk of harm and finds that, due to lack of fully developed insight and remediation, there remains a risk of the Registrant causing harm to colleagues and the public in the future.

128. The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour
amounted to serious professional misconduct and fell short of what would be expected of a professional. The misconduct admitted and found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel finds that the misconduct is so serious that the public interest demands a finding of impairment.

129. The Panel found that the Registrant had breached the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, and had failed in one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, to act with decency and integrity, which brings the profession into disrepute.

130. The Panel is satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

131. The Panel finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on both the personal and public component.

Decision on Sanction
132. Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC made representations on sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction and would leave this as a matter of judgment for the Panel.

133. Ms Rowan addressed the Panel on this issue of sanction and invited it to consider a short suspension order, submitting that a striking off order was not necessary in the public interest or to maintain the reputation of the profession. Ms Rowan submitted that there had been no harm caused to service users, and the potential to cause risk through operational changes was hypothetical.

134. Ms Rowan identified that the Registrant had recognised his failings and had taken some action to remediate, it was accepted that there is more to be done and that the Registrant was willing to engage. Ms Rowan submitted that the Registrant’s ability to fully remediate had been limited due to the interim suspension order which had been in place for three years and three months.

135. It was submitted that as the instigator of the sexually motivated conduct the Registrant walking away would entirely limit the risk of any repetition. Ms Rowan submitted that the conduct was a continuing act, but in the context of a previously unblemished career, at a time when he was suffering a unique set of circumstances in his personal life and that the Panel could consider this to be a mitigating factor.

136. The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of the sanction is to protect the public and that they should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect to other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

137. The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction. A sanction should never be imposed with the intention of punishing a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed if required to protect the public (including, of course, future service users), to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards.

138. The Panel was aware that if a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of gravity until one that sufficiently addresses the proper sanction aims just identified is reached. The Panel was aware that it must consider the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addresses the aims of a sanction, and be satisfied that it is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

139. The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. The Panel recognised that sanctions can be punitive in character and effect.

140. The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-
• The lack of any previous fitness to practise / regulatory concerns;
• The Registrant’s self-referral to the HCPC;
• The Registrant’s engagement in the regulatory process;
• The admissions made by the Registrant in relation to Colleague A;
• The reflective piece, statement and evidence of the Registrant which demonstrates some insight, remorse and apology;
• The professional boundaries and workplace harassment courses undertaken by the Registrant;
• The counselling undertaken by the Registrant;
• The fact the Registrant had a lengthy unblemished period of service as a registered Paramedic;
• No harm was caused to service users;
• The personal difficulties encountered by the Registrant around the time of the misconduct; and
• The positive testimonials from his current employer.

141. The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-
• The persistent and prolonged nature of the sexually motivated behaviour which continued despite the lack of responses and lack of engagement by Colleagues A and C;
• Colleague A was vulnerable by virtue of her junior status and there was a breach of trust;
• The seriousness of the sexually motivated behaviour involved two colleagues which suggests a pattern of behaviour;
• The limited insight demonstrated by the Registrant into the impact of his behaviour on Colleague A, Colleague C, the wider team, the profession and the public;
• The limited remediation which does not fully address the attitudinal / sexually motivated behaviour so as to avoid the future risk of repetition; and
• The Registrant failed to self-manage his external stressors.

142. The Panel found that the misconduct was serious in nature. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy referred to ‘Serious Cases’ as being those involving abuse of professional position (paragraphs 67-69), vulnerability (paragraphs 73-74) and sexual misconduct (paragraphs 76-77).

143. The Panel finds the abuse of professional position to involve behaviour towards more junior colleagues in his desire to seek sexual gratification, or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Colleague A. The vulnerability of Colleague A was in her more junior status to the Registrant.

144. The Panel noted paragraph 76 which states ‘Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession’, and paragraph 77 which states ‘Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction’.

145. The Panel did not feel that this matter could be concluded with either mediation, no order or a caution. They did not consider these to be appropriate or adequate sanctions due to the serious nature of the concerns raised, and the requirement to protect the public from harm and ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained.

146. The Panel noted that both Colleague A and Colleague C had benefitted from special measures in giving their evidence so as not to see or be seen by the Registrant. They had sought to avoid the Registrant’s behaviours by asking to change who they worked with on shift. The Panel concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address the serious concerns.

147. The Panel next considered a conditions of practice order. Due to the lack of fully developed insight, insufficient evidence of remediation, the lack of a professional employer, and the concerns not being clinical in nature, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be workable. Nor did it consider that a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to address the serious misconduct identified or adequately address the public interest concerns.

148. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not been in a clinical environment for at least the duration of his interim suspension order and he would need to undertake the HCPC ‘return to practice’ requirements.

149. Further, the Panel considered paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving…abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct’.

150. The Panel found that due to the attitudinal and sexually motivated conduct there are no conditions they could impose to address the concerns that are workable, appropriate or proportionate. The allegations are too serious to be concluded in this way.

151. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator.

152. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where ‘the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• 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’.

153. The Panel found that there had been a serious breach of the standards, while the Registrant has expressed some remorse and insight into his behaviour, this is not fully developed at this time. The Registrant has the ability to reflect further so as to avoid the risk of repetition. A period of suspension would give the Registrant the opportunity to develop his insight fully and remediate so as to satisfy a reviewing panel that he was able to entirely avoid the risk of any repetition of his behaviours. The Panel was reassured that there had been no concerns in the Registrant’s new employment, however, his commitment to change had not been tested in a professional Paramedic environment.

154. The Panel went on to consider a striking off order which removes a Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising their profession.

155. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states ‘A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving… abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct’.

156. The Panel finds that the matters found proved are serious, persistent and deliberate as the Registrant failed to acknowledge that his behaviour and comments were not reciprocated.

157. However, the Panel also considered paragraph 131 which 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. In particular where the registrant:
• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters’.

158. The Panel is unable to conclude that the Registrant lacks insight or that the conduct is likely to be repeated as there has been engagement by the Registrant who has undertaken a course on professional boundaries and workplace harassment. There is no suggestion that the Registrant is unwilling to resolve matters.

159. The Panel considered a Striking Off Order but found that such an order would be disproportionate in all the circumstances, as there had been no repetition of the behaviours, the Registrant had demonstrated a commitment to resolve matters, and the public may lose the service of an experienced Paramedic.

160. A Striking Off Order is a long-term sanction and the Panel finds that a Suspension Order provides a sufficient level of protection for the wider public interest. In the Panel’s judgment, a Striking Off Order is not required to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process as a Suspension Order will be adequate to protect the public interest, and the public will be satisfied by such an order. A Suspension Order is adequate to reflect the seriousness of the matters found proved.

161. The Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight and remediation and considered it appropriate to afford the Registrant the opportunity to reflect further and evidence his learning through reflection which will afford him an opportunity to consider a return to practice.

162. The Panel concludes that the appropriate and proportionate Order is a Suspension Order for a period of six months.

163. The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. A future reviewing Panel may be assisted by:
• The Registrant’s attendance and engagement;
• A reflective piece from the Registrant dealing with insight into sexually motivated behaviour, abuse of trust, inappropriate workplace relationships, professional boundaries and the impact of sexualised behaviours on colleagues, the team and the wider public;
• Consideration by the Registrant of the current Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, and how this will influence his conduct going forward in effective workplace communication and challenging poor behaviours;
• CPD where the Registrant can evidence his learning in his reflections and state how it will influence his future conduct and what he will do differently;
• Evidence of remediation which addresses the sexual motivation and how he would address and deal with external stressors to avoid the risk of repetition.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Kevin Baker for a period of 6 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr Slack submitted that the Panel should consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month Interim Suspension Order on the Registrant’s registration. He submitted that such an order is necessary in the public interest and that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

2. Ms Rowan on behalf of the Registrant addressed the Panel.
Decision

3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

4. The Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an Interim Order application.

5. The Panel was mindful that once it reaches a final decision in respect of the substantive allegation any pre-existing interim order terminates. This would mean that the Registrant would not be subject to any practice restrictions unless an interim order is imposed, as a sanction order does not come into effect until either the expiry of the appeal period, or if there is an appeal, the determination of that appeal.

6. The Panel paid careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’, which offers guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. The guidance states that Registrants should be made aware of the potential for an interim order to be imposed
on their registration after the Panel has made a substantive order and should be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of an interim order.

7. The Panel recognised that its power to impose an interim order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Suspension Order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings and the public interest concerns if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction.

8. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order, with immediate effect, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in this regulatory process.

9. The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.

Decision:
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same 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 Kevin Baker