Matthew Goodey

Preliminary Matters
Service

1.    The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing under Rule 6(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) was sent to the Registrant by email on 3 November 2025. The notice included the information required by Rule 6 and was sent at least 28 days before the hearing date, as required by Rule 6(2). The notice of hearing was also sent by email to the Registrant’s representatives by email on the same date 
 
2.    The Panel had sight of a confirmation of email delivery, dated 3 November 2025. The HCPC Certificate of Registration dated 3 November 2025 confirmed the Registrant’s email address registered with the HCPC to which notice of the hearing was sent.

3.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been served with notice of the hearing in compliance with the requirements of the Rules. 

Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant

4.    The Registrant was not present at the hearing.  Mr Maughan, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.  He referred to the witness statement provided by the Registrant dated 30 March 2026 in which the Registrant stated that he has taken retirement.  He left the UK in August 2025 and is now living abroad. The Registrant stated the dates for the hearing were under discussion for a long period and now he is not available on the current dates.  He stated that he is not in a position to engage with the hearing from where he is located. The Registrant confirmed that he did not object to the hearing going ahead in his absence.
 
5.    The Panel also noted that this position was confirmed in written submissions provided by Counsel, Mr C Geering, on the Registrant’s behalf, in which it was stated that the Registrant is unable to attend and is currently in a remote rural location in Thailand. It was confirmed that the Registrant intended no disrespect and was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence.

6.    Mr Maughan submitted that it was apparent that the Registrant did not intend to be present at this hearing and had voluntarily waived his right to attend. He submitted that it was therefore in the public interest for the Panel to proceed and consider the case today. 

7.    The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was reminded of its discretion to proceed in absence under Rule 11. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in Absence (August 2025), which sets out relevant guidance from the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. The Panel was careful to remember that its discretion to proceed in absence is not unfettered and must be exercised with the utmost caution and with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind. 

8.    The Panel noted that the Registrant was given appropriate notice of today’s hearing date. He was informed of the powers available to the Panel and of his right to attend and be represented. The Registrant was offered assistance to join the virtual meeting. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPC to inform the Registrant of this hearing. However, the Registrant has decided not to be present at the hearing and stated he is content for it to proceed in his absence.  

9.    The Panel was mindful of fairness to the HCPC and its witnesses who were ready and scheduled to give evidence at this hearing.  The Panel noted that the allegations date back to 2020 and 2021 and further delay is likely to impact on witnesses and their recollection. 

10.    The Panel accepted that there would be a disadvantage to the Registrant if the Panel proceeded to reach a determination of the allegations in his absence. However, the Registrant has submitted two witness statements and written submissions on his behalf have been provided by Counsel, both of which the Panel could take into account. 

11.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself from this hearing and has waived his right to attend. He has not sought an adjournment for any reason. He has clearly stated that he does not intend to be present at this hearing and does not object to it taking place in his absence. The Panel concluded that there is no indication that the Registrant would attend on a future date if this matter were adjourned today. 

12.    The Panel concluded it is important in the public interest that these fitness to practise allegations should now be resolved as soon as possible and was satisfied it is in the public interest for this hearing to proceed today.

13.    The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that having decided to hear the case in absence, it should ensure that the hearing was as fair as circumstances permit. That would include looking for points favourable to the Registrant which are reasonably available on the evidence. When considering witness evidence, the Panel ought to take reasonable steps to expose any weaknesses in the HCPC’s case, without extending to cross-examining witnesses. The Registrant had made a decision not to be present at this hearing, to give evidence to the panel or to cross-examine the HTPC's witnesses, as was his right.  However, the Panel had received two witness statements, dated 30 and 31 March 2026, from the Registrant which it could take into account, subject to giving appropriate weight to them. The Panel had also received written submissions from Counsel, Mr Geering.  The Panel determined that in the interest of ensuring that the hearing was as fair as possible, it would take these matters into account in the Registrant’s absence, as appropriate.  

Application for part private hearing 

14.    Mr Maughan made an application for any issues relating to the private life of the Registrant and the service users who would be giving evidence to be heard in private.

15.    The Panel took legal advice and referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Private Hearings (February 2025).  The Panel was reminded that HCPC hearings are held in public in the interests of open justice and transparency. There is provision for the Panel to hold part or all of a hearing in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules if the Panel is satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the Registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence, or any patient or client. Private life includes matters related to a person’s health. In relation to an application for privacy, the Panel should depart from the principle of a public hearing to the least possible extent.

16.    The Panel was mindful from the case documentation it had seen that it may be necessary to refer to matters relating to the Registrant's health. The evidence from, and relating to, the service users concerned health consultations they had had with the Registrant. The Panel was satisfied that these matters relating to the private life of the Registrant and the service users should remain private.  The Panel accepted the HCPC's application and directed that any parts of the hearing relating to the private life of the Registrant and the service users should be heard in private. The remainder of the hearing would take place in public.

Application to admit hearsay evidence

17.    Mr Maughan made an application to submit the written witness statement of Service User D as hearsay evidence. The circumstances were that Service User D had been scheduled to attend the hearing and give evidence remotely on the first day.  However, at 03.45 am on the Saturday prior to the morning of the hearing the HCPC received an email from Service User D asking to withdraw from giving evidence and referring to her anxiety which was exacerbating her mental health conditions.
  
18.    The start of the hearing was delayed while inquiries were made by the HCPC with Service User D and Service User G, Service User D’s stepmother (who was also due to give evidence) to see whether Service User D’s attendance could be facilitated.  However, Mr Maughan informed the Panel that Service User G had confirmed that Service User D was not willing to participate. She had confirmed that Service User D has a number of mental health conditions, that her sleeping patterns were being adversely affected and she would not be able to participate in this hearing. Mr Maughan confirmed that the HCPC would therefore apply to admit Service User D’s witness statement as hearsay evidence. 

19.    Mr Maughan’s application referred to Rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules and to the provisions of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 which does not exclude the admission of hearsay evidence. Mr Maughan referred to relevant case law authorities, including the guidance from the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) and submitted that in the circumstances the witness statement of Service User D should be admitted as hearsay evidence.  Mr Maughan’s alternative submission was that, given the public interest in the case, the Panel should admit the hearsay evidence under Rule 10(1)(c) which provides that a panel has a discretion to receive evidence which would not be admissible in civil proceedings where it is satisfied that admission of the evidence is “necessary in order to protect members of the public”.

20.    The Panel carefully considered the submissions of Mr Maughan and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel referred to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note, Evidence (October 2024).  The Panel approached the applications bearing in mind the paramount importance of fairness and the interests of justice in HCPC proceedings. It bore in mind that at a final hearing, the HCPC bears the burden of proof of the factual allegations and that the civil standard of proof applies. 

21.    The Panel was advised that Rule 10 (1)(b) provides that the rules on the admissibility of evidence that apply in civil proceedings in the appropriate court in the part of the United Kingdom where the hearing takes place shall apply. In relation to the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings, the Civil Evidence Act 1995 applies. The Act allows for hearsay evidence to admissible, subject to certain safeguards. The Panel bore in mind the authorities drawn to its attention in relation to hearsay evidence. The Panel bore in mind, as emphasised in the judgment in El Karout v NMC [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin), the distinction between the issue of admissibility of hearsay evidence as opposed to the weight to be attached to the evidence, if admitted. 

22.    The Panel considered the guidance from the case of Thorneycroft v NMC.  It noted that the admission of the statement of an absent witness should not be a routine matter. The issue of fairness should be considered before the statement was admitted. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence was a factor to weigh in the balance but would not always answer the issue of admissibility. Although not finally determinative, the absence of a good and cogent reason for the non-attendance of the witness is an important factor. Where the evidence in question is the sole or decisive evidence, the Panel must make a careful assessment and weigh up the competing factors. The Panel should consider the issues in the case, the other evidence to be called and the potential consequences of admitting the evidence. The Panel must be satisfied that the evidence is demonstrably reliable, or that there is some means of testing its reliability.

23.    The Panel took into account the following factors:

-    that the HCPC had arranged for Service User D to give evidence at this hearing, but she was now not able to do so.  The Panel was mindful that Service User D has a background of mental health conditions, as is evident from the case documentation.  The circumstances of Service User D not attending were unforeseen. The Panel was satisfied that on the morning of the hearing, the HCPC had made all reasonable efforts to arrange for Service User D to be present to give evidence.  The Panel was satisfied that there was a cogent reason for Service D not being in attendance;

-    that advance notice of the HCPC’s application had not been given to the Registrant as the HCPC had intended she would give evidence.  However, as the Registrant was not present at the hearing, he would not have cross-examined Service User D; 

-    the evidence of Service User D related to Charge 2. The Panel was mindful that, although evidence was also to be called from Service User G and from the Practice Manager, only Service User D was actually present in the consultation with the Registrant, and in that sense, her evidence was sole and decisive in respect of Charge 2;

-    that Charge 2 was denied by the Registrant;  

-    that the hearsay document was a formal witness statement taken from Service User D for the purposes of the HCPC proceedings. It was signed by Service User D and included a statement of truth. The Panel was therefore satisfied it bore a degree of reliability and credibility;

-    that the Panel the satisfied there was no reason evident to suggest that Service User D’s evidence was fabricated or that she had any motive for making the complaint;

-    that if the charges were found proved, there could be an adverse impact on the Registrant’s professional career.

24.    Having taken account of the above factors, the Panel was satisfied that there would be no unfairness in admitting Service User D’s witness statement. The Panel was satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice that the hearsay evidence should be admitted and accepted the HCPC’s application. The Panel was also satisfied that the provisions of Rule 10(1)(c) applied, in that the admission of the evidence would be “necessary in order to protect members of the public” given the serious nature of the charges in this case. 

25.    The Panel’s decision was that Service User D’s witness statement should be admitted in her absence.  The Panel would, when considering the evidence in due course, consider what weight could be properly be given to the hearsay statement.  

The Registrant’s response

26.    The Registrant was not present at the hearing but had submitted two witness statements dated 30 March on 31 March 2026 together with exhibits. Written submissions had also been received from Counsel, Mr Geering, on the Registrant’s behalf. In order to ensure that the hearing was as fair as circumstances permitted in the light of the Registrant’s decision not to attend, the Panel decided that it could take account of the statements and submissions to the extent it found them relevant and helpful.

27.    In the Registrant’s witness statement, and confirmed in the submissions of Mr Geering, it was indicated that the Registrant denied Charges 2, 3 and 5.  It was indicated that the facts alleged in Charges 1 and 4 were admitted.  In the circumstances of the Registrant not being present at the hearing, the panel decided to note the admissions but not to formally find the facts of Charges 1 and 4 formally proved until it had heard the other evidence relating to those charges. 

Background

28.    The Registrant is a registered Paramedic (PA03844). At the time relevant to the charges brought by the HCPC the Registrant was employed as an Emergency Care Practitioner at a GP Surgery (the Surgery).

29.    The Surgery received complaints in respect of consultation the Registrant had had with three service users, Service User F, Service User D and Service User E alleging that the Registrant's communication during the consultations was inappropriate.

30.    Service User F submitted a concern in respect of a consultation with the Registrant on or around 17 July 2020.  Service User F had a telephone consultation with the Registrant to discuss concerns she had in relation to problems with her leg and foot. The HCPC's case was that during the consultation the Registrant asked questions about Service User F’s weight and made the comments alleged in charge 1(a) –(d).  Service User F made a complaint to the Surgery on the following day. 

31.    The complaint in respect of Service User D related to a consultation with the Registrant on or around 16 November 2020 and was received from Service User G, the stepmother of Service User D. The HCPC's case was that during the consultation, Service User D discussed with the registrant that she had started smoking in order to stop herself from self-harming. The Registrant is alleged to have responded making the comments referred to in Charge 2.  The Service User’s stepmother, Service User G, was outside the surgery waiting for her in the car.  Her evidence was that she observed that Service User D was in tears and upset.  Service User G returned to the surgery to make a complaint verbally to the receptionist. Service User G was asked to put her complaint in writing, which she subsequently did. Service User G subsequently received a letter from the Surgery stating that the Registrant was to be given a verbal warning but would carry on working at the Surgery. Service User felt let down by the Surgery about the incident.

32.    The complaint in respect of Service User E, related to a consultation with the Registrant on or around 22 September 2021.  The HCPC's case was that Service User E, who was 14 years old at the time, was accompanied to the consultation by her mother, Service User H. Service User E and H were seeking advice because she had been having issues of becoming breathless when she was swimming.  Service User H described that various options had been tried but had not been successful and they were consulting the Registrant to look into matters further.  Service User H stated that during the consultation the Registrant had a flippant attitude and seemed rushed. Service User H stated that when Service User E described how she was struggling to breathe during swimming, the Registrant made a comment to the effect of “Wait, you're struggling to breathe during swimming? Hang on, so when you swim fast at a competitive level you struggle to breathe?” The Registrant then laughed sarcastically. Service User H saw that her daughter was distressed and felt the consultation was not getting anywhere so they left the consultation. Service User H wrote a letter of complaint to the Surgery the day after the appointment which was also signed by Service User E. They received a letter of response from the Practise Manager at the surgery. Service User H expressed concern that her daughter came away from the consultation feeling that she should not talk about her concerns or worries. Service User E was later diagnosed with an eating disorder.

33.    The HCPC alleged that in respect of each of Charges 1, 2 and 3, the alleged comments of the Registrant amounted to inappropriate communication with the service users.

34.    On 1 March 2023, as a result of a separate concern, the Surgery suspended the Registrant from his role with immediate effect. The Surgery conducted an investigation and disciplinary proceedings followed. A disciplinary hearing was held in March 2023, and on 28th March 2023, the Registrant was informed that he was dismissed from his employment at the Surgery. The Registrant subsequently appealed. The appeal hearing took place on 27 April 2023. The Registrant’s dismissal was upheld.

35.    On 16 May 2023, a referral to the HCPC was made by Mr KW, the Practice Manager at the Surgery.

36.    In respect of charge 4, the HCPC alleges that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of his suspension and dismissal from his employment at the Surgery in a timely manner and that he was required to do so in accordance with Paragraph 9.5 of the HCPC's Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics 2016 which requires that registrants inform the HCPC “as soon as possible if you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer because of concerns about their conduct or competence” 

37.    The HCPC’s case was that the referral made by the Surgery on 16 May 2023 was the first notification to the HCPC concerning the Registrant’s suspension or dismissal.  The information was provided by the Surgery and not by the Registrant.   

The HCPC’s evidence

38.    The Panel heard evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the HCPC: Mr KW, Practice Manager at the Surgery, Service User F, Service User G (stepmother of Service User D), and Service User H (mother of Service User E). 

39.    The Panel also received a witness statement and exhibits from Ms Chloe Jeram, Case Manager in the HCPC Fitness to Practise Department, dated 18 June 2024, and the witness statement of Service User D, dated 22 August 2024, which had been admitted as hearsay evidence.  

Decision on Facts

40.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the standard of proof in HCPTS proceedings is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.  The burden of proof in respect of factual matters was upon the HCPC and it was not for the Registrant to prove his innocence. The legal advice also included reference to relevant case law authorities,  including the case of Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin).

41.    The Panel was reminded that Charge 5 alleged that the conduct alleged in Charges 4(a) and (b) was dishonest on the basis that the Registrant knew he was required to inform the HCPC of his suspension and/or dismissal from employment. The Panel was advised that if it found the facts in particulars 4(a) and (b) proved, it should then go on to consider whether it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that that conduct was dishonest.  The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Making Decisions on a Registrant’s State of Mind (August 2025) and to the test it should apply in respect of dishonesty from the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. (Appellant) v Genting Casinos Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 67.

Charge 1

On or around 17 July 2020, you communicated inappropriately with Service User F, in that:

a)    You said, “you’re a big girl”, or words to that effect.

b) You said, “I bet you come from a house where you were always told to
finish your plate”, or words to that effect.

c)You suggested that Service User F request that someone push them in
a sack barrow, due to their weight.

d)You said, “You don’t want to be sitting there in a chair with your feet up
eating chips, chips and more chips”, or words to that effect.

42.    In his witness statement of 30 March 2026, the Registrant admitted the facts alleged in Charge 1(a) – (d).  The Panel noted that the Registrant stated that he did not recall the exact words but that he accepted that the use of such words was wrong and that he should not have said this during the consultation. He stated it was never his intention to demean Service User F and for this he apologised.  

43.    Although the Registrant accepted the charge, the Panel considered the all the evidence relevant to Charge 1.

44.    The Panel noted that the Registrant had obtained with a copy of the clinical record in relation to the consultation which was exhibited to his statement. The Panel reviewed the clinical record but concluded that it provided limited assistance as the charge did not relate to clinical issues.

45.    The Panel considered the evidence of Service User F who adopted her witness statement dated 5 September 2024 describing the incident.  Service User F gave oral evidence. The Panel considered that Service User F had a clear recollection of the comments the Registrant made to her during the telephone consultation in question. The Panel observed that the impact of the comments was still felt by Service User F when she gave evidence. She told the Panel that she recalled the comments clearly but the impact was such at the time that she was distracted from the rest of the consultation.  The Panel found Service User F’s evidence to be clear, consistent and credible. 

46.    The Panel heard evidence from the Practice Manager, Mr KW, that the original written complaint from Service User F and the recording of the telephone consultation were no longer available. However, the Practice Manager confirmed that he had listened to the recording at the time and recalled that it supported Service User F’s complaint.

47.    The Panel took into account and accepted the Registrant’s admission to Charge 1(a) to (d). The Panel took into account that the charge included the phrase “words to that effect”, and so did not depend on an admission to the precise words in the charge. The Panel was also satisfied this charge was supported by the evidence of Service User F and the Practice Manager.  

48.    The Panel further concluded that each of the comments amounted to inappropriate communication by the Registrant.  The comments were clearly of an unprofessional nature in the context of a clinical consultation between a healthcare professional and a service user who was seeking help and advice from that professional. That was even more the case given the vulnerability of this service user who told the Panel that she had suffered from depression.

49.    The Panel was satisfied taking account of the Registrant’s admission and the HCPC’s evidence that the entirety of Charge 1 was proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Charge 2

On or around 16 November 2020, you communicated inappropriately towards Service User D, in that you said “self-harming won’t kill you but smoking will” or words to that effect.

50.    The Panel had accepted an application to admit the witness statement of Service User D dated 22 August 2024 as hearsay evidence.  The Panel considered it was appropriate to give some weight to this evidence. It was in the form of a signed witness statement, containing a formal Statement of Truth and was provided for the purpose of the HCPC proceedings.  The HCPC had intended to call Service User D to give oral evidence at the hearing but this had not proved possible at the last minute.  The Panel was satisfied that Service User D’s evidence had been clear and consistent, particularly in relation to the comment made by the registrant that “self-harming won't kill you but smoking will”. The Panel had heard evidence that a complaint was submitted about the consultation by her stepmother, Service User G, promptly following the consultation on 16th November 2020. 

51.    The Panel heard oral evidence at the hearing from Service User G.  She told the Panel about Service User D’s mental health condition and history of self-harming.  She had told the Panel that she was not allowed to go into the consultation with her stepdaughter, as she would normally have done,  due to COVID restrictions at the time.  Service User G waited for service User D outside in the car. Service User G gave the Panel a clear description of the distressed state in which Service User D returned to the car after the consultation. She told the Panel that it was evident to her before Service User D spoke that something had taken place to upset her. 

52.    The Panel found Service User G’s evidence in relation to this clear and consistent. She explained the impact upon Service User D at the time and subsequently since the event. The Panel felt that Service User G’s evidence about the exact words which her stepdaughter reported as having been said to her by the Registrant was less clear and in any event was hearsay.  However, her evidence supported the fact that an incident had taken place at the consultation and that it had had a significant impact on Service User D.

53.    The Panel considered the explanation given by the Registrant in his witness statement of 30 March 2026, albeit in his absence it gave his account limited weight. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepted that the during the consultation issues relating to smoking and self-harming had taken place.  He stated “She told me that she smoked and that was the only thing that stopped her from self-harming. I then discussed with her that smoking is in itself a form of self-harm. I gave her contact details for the smoking cessation service...”.

54.    Considering all the evidence in the round, the Panel accepted the account of Service User D and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant had used the words to the effect of those alleged in Charge 2 during the consultation. The Panel was further satisfied that this was an inappropriate manner in which to communicate with a vulnerable service user. If a discussion concerning smoking was required, the Panel was of the view that it was entirely inappropriate to link it with self-harming behaviour as part of a discussion with a vulnerable service user who had a history of self-harming.

55.    The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did use words to the effect of those referred to in Charge 2 and found the charge proved.

Charge 3.

On or around 21 September 2021, you communicated inappropriately with Service User E, a patient, in that you laughed at them.

56.    The Registrant denied this charge.  He had obtained the clinical record for the consultation on 21 September 2021. He did not dispute that the consultation with Service User E had taken place and recalled a discussion about swimming and Service User E’s breathlessness.  He set out his recollection of the clinical aspects of the consultation but stated that he strenuously denied that he had laughed at Service User E.

57.    In respect of this charge, the Panel considered the evidence of Service User H who had provided a witness statement dated 11 September 2024 and who attended the hearing and gave oral evidence to the Panel. Service User H was the mother of the Service User E who was referred to in the charge.  Service User H attended the consultation with her daughter. 

58.    The Panel found that Service User H had a detailed recollection of the consultation with the Registrant.  The Panel concluded that Service User H was a credible witness who gave clear and consistent, but balanced, evidence which was also fair to the Registrant.

59.    Service User H made a prompt, contemporaneous, complaint to the surgery on the day after the consultation.

60.    The Panel considered the explanation provided by the Registrant in his witness statement of 30 March 2026, bearing in mind again that he had not chosen to attend this hearing and give evidence which could be tested by questioning, and it was therefore able to give less weight to his account.  The Panel however noted that the Registrant disputed this charge and specifically disputed that he would ever laugh at service users during a consultation.  

61.    The Panel was mindful that in her oral evidence Service User H described the Registrant laughing during the consultation, but in response to questions she did not think that he had laughed at herself and her daughter.  The Panel noted the wording of the charge, which alleged that the Registrant “communicated inappropriately with Service User E, a patient, in that you laughed at them”.  The Panel noted the whole context of Service User H’s evidence where she referred to the Registrant having laughed and been sarcastic during the consultation. When the concerns of Service User E regarding her breathlessness when swimming were discussed, Service User H referred to the Registrant commenting “Wait.  You're struggling to breathe during swimming? Hang on, so when you swim fast, at a competitive level, you struggle to breathe?” He then sort of laughed sarcastically almost as if he had solved the mystery.”

62.    Service User H was clear the Registrant laughed several times during the consultation.  Her evidence was clear about the impact his manner during the consultation had upon her and Service User E. The Panel concluded, having considered Service User H’s description of the whole consultation, that it was satisfied that the Registrant was laughing at Service User E and her mother, in that he was laughing and was sarcastic and appeared dismissive about the concerns which Service User E was raising during the consultation.  

63.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s manner of communication with Service User E and her mother during the consultation was inappropriate for a health professional when speaking to a vulnerable 14-year-old patient who had consulted him for advice concerning breathing difficulties.  The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Charge 4 was proved. 

Charge 4.

You did not inform the HPCC in a timely manner of:

a) your suspension from employment on 1 March 2023.
b) your dismissal from employment on 28 March 2023.

64.    In his witness statement of 30 March 2026, the Registrant admitted this charge.
 
65.    The Panel also considered the witness statement of Chloe Jeram, Case Manager at the HCPC, who confirmed in her witness statement dated 18 June 2024 that the HCPC’s case management system showed no record that the HCPC had been informed of either the Registrant’s suspension from his employment on 1 March 2023, or his dismissal on 28th March 2023.  The HCPC did not become aware until 16th of May 2023 when the referral of the concerns was received from the Practice Manager at the Surgery.

66.    The Panel noted the requirement in paragraph 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct and Performance to inform the HCPC “as soon as possible”.

67.    The Panel was satisfied that Standard 9.5 sets out clearly the obligation on an HCPC registrant to inform the HCPC of any suspension or dismissal by an employer in a timely manner.  As a Paramedic registered with the HCPC the Registrant should have been aware of his obligations under the HCPC Standards.  The Panel was satisfied, on the basis of the Registrant’s admission and the evidence of the HCPC Case Manager, that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of these matters in a timely manner in accordance with his obligation under the Standards and accordingly found Charges 4(a) and 4(b) proved on the balance of probabilities.

Charge 5

Your conduct in relation to particulars 4(a) and / or 4(b) was dishonest in that you knew you were required to inform the HCPC of the suspension and/or dismissal from employment.

68.    Having found particulars 4(a) and 4(b) proved, the Panel considered whether the Registrant had acted dishonestly in that, as alleged, he knew that he was required to inform the HCPC or his suspension and/or dismissal from employment.  

69.    In considering the allegation of dishonesty, the Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind” (August 2025).  The Panel applied the test for dishonesty set out in the case of Ivey.

70.    The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant was of previous good character which it took into account as a factor supporting his credibility and indicating he may be less likely to act as alleged. 

71.    The Registrant had provided a witness statement dated 30 March 2026 in which he denied that he had acted dishonestly and provided an explanation.  The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had decided not to attend this hearing and give evidence to the Panel which could have been tested under cross- examination and questions from the Panel.  Nevertheless, the Panel as a matter of fairness gave consideration to the Registrant's explanation, although it was able to give it limited weight.

72.    The Panel had been provided with evidence within the notes of the disciplinary appeal hearing appealing his dismissal held at the Surgery on 27 April 2023 which recorded that the Registrant was reminded of the requirement to inform the HCPC.  The Panel concluded that, whilst the Registrant should already have been aware of his obligation as HCPC registered Paramedic, from the point of being informed in the appeal proceedings, he had been reminded of the obligation and so was aware of it, as the Registrant accepted in his witness statement.  

73.    In his witness statement, the Registrant’s explanation for not informing the HCPC promptly following the appeal hearing was that he incorrectly interpreted the notification requirement as not indicating a specific timeframe. However, the panel considered that his account also suggested that he had made a deliberate decision not to inform the HCPC due to a variety of personal factors. He said that on being informed at the appeal hearing, he agreed that he would inform the HCPC and that remained his intention.  He said his actions were not deliberately dishonest but were due to extreme stress leading to procrastination and avoidance.  He felt he could not face another disciplinary proceeding immediately and would face up to it as soon as he felt emotionally stronger. He referred to issues of fear and shame in his decision not to notify the HCPC.

74.    Considering the first element of the test in the case of Ivey, the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts, the Panel concluded that the Registrant, from at least 27 April 2023 when he was reminded at the appeal hearing, was aware of his duty to inform the HCPC of his suspension and dismissal. 

75.    The Panel concluded, in the light of the explanation that the Registrant gave in his witness statement, that he made a deliberate decision not to inform the HCPC for his own reasons, due to his personal circumstances. 

76.    Considering the second element of the test in the case of Ivey, the Panel concluded that ordinary decent people who were aware of the circumstances in which the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of these matters, and who had knowledge of the duty upon HCPC registrants under paragraph 9.5 of the HCPC Standards, would conclude that the Registrant’s actions were dishonest.

77.    The Panel concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the Registrant had acted dishonestly as alleged and that Charge 5 was therefore proved.  
HCPC’s submissions 

78.    Mr Maughan referred to the submissions in the HCPC's case summary and provided further oral submissions. Mr Maughan reminded the Panel of the correct approach to the stages of misconduct and current impairment and referred to relevant legal principles from case law authorities.

79.    Mr Maughan submitted that the charges found proved established that in communicating with the service users the Registrant showed a concerning lack of respect, compassion, care and understanding. He submitted that the Registrant acted in a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and of what the public would expect of an HCPC registered Paramedic responsible for treating and communicating with patients at a local GP surgery. 

80.    Mr Maughan’s submission was that the Registrant’s communication with the service users was not only inappropriate and careless, but arguably also offensive and unsafe. He submitted the conduct fundamentally undermined the trust service users placed in the Registrant at a time of need.

81.    Mr Maughan submitted that fellow practitioners would find the conduct of the Registrant deplorable and that the Panel should make a finding of misconduct.  He referred to the paragraphs from the HCPC Standards of Conduct and Performance (2016) and from the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (pre 2023) which the HCPC submitted were relevant.

82.    Mr Maughan submitted that if misconduct was found proved the Panel should find the Registrant's fitness to practise currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public elements of current impairment. In respect of the personal component, Mr Maughan submitted  that there was evidence of an entrenched attitudinal or behavioural issue which is more difficult to remediate, in particular the dishonesty regarding his duties to inform the HCPC. He acknowledged that the Registrant has shown some remorse and limited insight. 

83.    In relation to the public component, Mr Maughan submitted that the public place trust in Paramedics to deliver care using appropriate and safe methods of communication.  The public must be able to have confidence in registrants who treat them. He submitted that any confidence the service users may have had in the Registrant eroded during the appointments. He also reminded the Panel of the dishonesty findings in relation to the Registrant’s duty to inform the HCPC and that this was a fundamental public safeguard. He submitted that given the seriousness of the conduct in this case, public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment in this case.

Registrant’s submissions

84.    The Registrant had submitted two witness statements, dated 30 March 2026 and 31 March 2026. The second statement addressed the Registrant’s account of the reflection and remediation he has undertaken. This statement exhibited documents relevant to this stage of the process including: the Registrant’s CV, patient feedback records, communications from his most recent employer, Ms AS, dated 19 June 2024 and 24 March 2026.  

85.    Written submissions dated 30 March 2026 have been provided on the Registrant’s behalf by Mr Geering, Counsel.  His submissions referred the Panel to relevant case law authorities. 

86.    Mr Geering submitted that the Panel should consider whether each charge on its own amounted to misconduct. He submitted that the Registrant’s remarks to Service User F were not intended to be offensive or deliberately insensitive. The Registrant was trying to empathise and adopting a humorous demeanour to build a rapport as a way of communicating empathy to the patient. He acknowledged that the approach was ill-considered and caused offence but submitted it was not deplorable. 

87.    Mr Geering’s submission was that the remarks to Service Users D and E were not at the level of seriousness to be considered deplorable or to amount to misconduct. His submission was that if the Registrant’s wording was poor, his intentions were good and he was apologetic when he heard he had caused distress.

88.    In relation to the communication towards the service users, Mr Geering submitted that a fellow practitioner may find the conduct was inappropriate communication, but it was not sufficiently serious to constitute moral opprobrium or be considered deplorable.

89.    Mr Geering asked the Panel to note that none of these instances caused the Surgery to refer this case to the HCPC which he submitted was an indication of their level of seriousness.

90.    In relation to Charge 4, Mr Geering accepted the failure to inform the HCPC was serious as this was an important obligation and the Registrant should have informed the regulator.

91.    In his submissions in respect of current impairment, Mr Geering submitted that the Registrant had apologised for the offence caused and had been willing to speak to patients to express his remorse personally. He submitted this was symptomatic of the Registrant's attitude and demonstrated insight.

92.    The Registrant had accepted that his communication was not always appropriate. He has reflected on the way he used humour and has undertaken targeted remediation. Mr Geering set out the continuing education courses which the Registrant has undertaken. He submitted that the Registrant's willingness to learn was to his credit, especially as he approached retirement. Mr Geering submitted the Registrant has clearly taken time to reflect on the courses and apply them to his position. He submitted this demonstrated good insight.

93.    Mr Geering referred to the evidence from the Registrant’s most recent employer, Ms AS. He noted there was no repetition of similar concerns at the health centre.

94.    In relation to the issue of failing to inform the regulator, Mr Geering submitted that the Registrant recognises the seriousness of his actions and it is to his credit that he has reflected on this misconduct. The Registrant has attended further continuing professional development courses. He has reflected and understands the seriousness of dishonesty. He understands the damage he has done to the profession.  Mr Geering asked the Panel to accept that the Registrant’s remorse was sincere. Whilst noting that the Panel was bound to find impairment in relation to dishonesty, Mr Geering’s submission was that the Panel should consider and note his insight remorse and good character.

Panel decision

95.    The Panel considered all the evidence and information it had received.  The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor regarding its task at the next two, separate, stages of misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise.  The  Panel was reminded it should first consider the statutory ground of misconduct and only if it found misconduct proved would it proceed to consider the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise. 

96.    The Panel was reminded that it should act in accordance with the HCPC’s overarching objective of protection of the public from those who are not fit to practise by:

-    Protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public;
-    Promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession; 
-    Promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.

97.    The Legal Assessor’s advice included reference to relevant legal authorities which provide guidance on how the Panel should consider the issues of misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise.  The Panel was reminded that before making a finding of misconduct it must be satisfied that there has been a serious falling short of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.  Misconduct and current impairment are matters for the Panel’s own judgment rather the application of the legal standard of proof. 

98.    The Panel considered all the information presented, together with the oral and written submissions from Mr Maughan on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant had decided not to be present at this hearing.  As a matter of fairness, the Panel considered that it should take into account the information and submissions presented on his behalf.  

Misconduct

99.    The Panel first considered whether the facts it had found proved amounted to misconduct. The Panel was mindful that a finding of misconduct does not follow automatically because findings of fact had been made and not every breach of the HCPC standards amount to misconduct. The Panel must be satisfied that there has been a serious falling short of the expected standards in order for misconduct to be established and this was a matter for the Panel’s own judgement.
 
Charge 1

100.    In respect of Charge 1(a) to (d), the Panel had found proved that in a consultation with Service User F the Registrant made a series of comments relating to Service User F’s weight. The Registrant had admitted the facts of this charge.

101.    The Panel considered that these comments were, on their face, inappropriate and offensive. They were not comments that were open to interpretation.  They were clearly inappropriate in the context of a clinical consultation between a healthcare professional and a service user.

102.    Whilst it may be clinically legitimate to discuss matters concerning a service user’s weight  management when they are seeking advice concerning leg and foot pain, the manner in which the Registrant did so in speaking to Service User F was unacceptable.

103.    Further, this was a telephone consultation with a service user whom the Registrant had not previously met.  The Panel heard that Service User F was vulnerable in that she had suffered from depression. She described the impact all of these comments upon her. She stated that she was taken aback and then distracted from concentrating on the rest of the consultation. She was left feeling distressed by the comments and it was evident to the Panel that they still affected Service User F when she spoke about them in her evidence. 

104.    Communication skills are a fundamental aspect of a Paramedic’s professional responsibilities. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s justification that he was trying to be good humoured.  The comments were not of a professional nature and it was not in Service User F’s best interests for him to speak to her in this manner.

105.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's actions fell far below the standard expected in the consultation with Service User F.

Charge 2

106.    The Panel had found proved that the Registrant communicated inappropriately towards Service User D in relation to his comments at the consultation in November 2020.  

107.    The Panel considered that, whilst it may have been clinically appropriate to discuss smoking with a service user who had consulted him regarding a chest condition, it was inappropriate to link this with the sensitive subject of self-harm. This service user was a vulnerable young person with a history of self-harm and mental health issues. To discuss the issues of smoking and self-harm was inappropriate and potentially dangerous to the Service User D. Furthermore, the Panel noted that this was not the first time that the Registrant had encountered Service User D and he therefore should have had some knowledge of her mental health history.  The Registrant’s clinical notes demonstrated that he had an understanding of her clinical condition and he referred to having spoken to Service User D regarding her health previously.

108.    The Panel considered that the Registrant was not exercising the professional skill and care expected of Paramedic in his manner of communication with Service User D.  The Panel heard from Service User G, her stepmother, about the impact she observed that the consultation had had on Service User D when she saw her immediately afterwards. The Panel noted from the written statement of Service User D that she found the Registrant’s comment “quite triggering of my self-harming” and that she had gone for four years without self-harming. Service User D described trying not to cry in the room and starting to cry as soon as she left the room. 

109.    The Panel had also heard that at the time of this consultation the Registrant had been subject to a previous warning issued by the Surgery in relation to his communication style and professionalism. Nevertheless, he again communicated inappropriately with a service user in a clinical consultation on this occasion. 

110.    The Panel considered that the Registrant’s communication could have put Service User D at risk of harm.  The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's actions fell far below the standard expected in this consultation.

Charge 3

111.    In respect of Charge 3 the Panel had found that the Registrant communicated inappropriately with Service User E in that he laughed at her and her mother in a consultation in September 2021. The Panel had concluded that the Registrant’s attitude was sarcastic and dismissive of the concerns for which Service User E and her mother were seeking his advice.  

112.    Service User E was a 14-year-old child who consulted the Registrant in connection with breathing problems she had been experiencing for approximately a year when swimming, despite being a competitive level swimmer. The Panel considered it was inappropriate to be dismissive of the Service User’s concerns. Because of the attitude the Registrant demonstrated Service User E and her mother walked out part-way through the consultation. They left feeling that the consultation was a waste of time and ultimately without obtaining the help and advice that they needed. The Registrant’s behaviour in laughing at the concerns of Service User E and her mother was inappropriate.  The Panel considered that the Registrant's attitude could have undermined the confidence of this 14-year-old child in seeking advice from health professionals for the future. 

113.    The Panel noted that in his explanation the Registrant referred to trying to ask about problems that might indicate a serious underlying problem without frightening Service User E and her mother.  He believed he was friendly and light-hearted in his approach whilst running through in his mind questions about whether this was a serious illness. The Panel considered this was not an appropriate way to respond to the situation if he had that concern. The Panel was satisfied that his behaviour fell far short of the standard expected during this consultation. 

Charge 4

114.    The Registrant admitted, and the Panel found proved, that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of his suspension from his employment on 1 March 2023, and his dismissal from his employment on 28 March 2023, in a timely manner, as required by paragraph 9.5 of the HCPC Standards.

115.    The Panel concluded that the obligation in Standard 9.5 is clear and that as a registered professional, the Registrant has responsibility to be aware of and comply with their regulator’s standards of conduct.  

116.     The Panel considered that by not informing the HCPC of his suspension and then dismissal the Registrant deprived the HCPC of the ability to fulfil its duty to supervise and monitor professional standards.  This risked undermining public confidence in the HCPC as a regulator. Whether or not the HCPC would have become aware of these matters from his employer, the Registrant, as an autonomous professional of long-standing experience, was accountable for his own actions and compliance with his regulator’s standards.

117.    The Panel was also mindful that the obligation to inform the HCPC was expressly brought to the Registrant's attention at the hearing of his disciplinary appeal.  The hearing notes indicate that Standard 9.5 was read out to him. His response was “OK I'll let them know” but he still did not take the required action to inform the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that his behaviour fell far short of the standard expected.  

Charge 5

118.    The Panel had found that the Registrant acted dishonestly when he did not inform the HCPC of his suspension and dismissal in a timely manner.  The Panel had found that he made a deliberate decision not to inform the HCPC promptly when the obligation was expressly brought to his attention.  

119.    Honesty and integrity are fundamental standards expected of an HCPC registered Paramedic.  The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct fell far short of the standard expected and amounted to misconduct. 

120.    The Panel considered that the misconduct found proved called into question the Registrant’s conduct in respect of the following paragraphs of the HCPC Standards of Conduct and Performance (2016):

1.2 You must work in partnership with service users and carers, involving them, where appropriate in decisions about the care treatment or other services to be provided
2.1 You must be polite and considerate. 
2.2 You must listen to service users and carers and take account of their needs and wishes. 
2.3 You must give service users and carers the information they want or need, in a way they can understand
6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible. 
6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession
9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence. 

121.    The Panel considered that the following paragraphs of the HCPC Standards or Proficiency for Paramedics (pre 2023) were engaged by the Registrant’s misconduct:

2.1 Understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times

2.2 Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council

2.3 Understand the need to respect and uphold the rights, dignity, values, and autonomy of service users including their role in the diagnostic and therapeutic process and in maintaining health and wellbeing

2.4 Recognise that relationships with service users should be based on mutual respect and trust, and be able to maintain high standards of care even in situations of personal incompatibility

2.8 Be able to exercise a professional duty of care

3.1 Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

8 Be able to communicate effectively

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

8.3 Understand how communication skills affect assessment of, and engagement with, service users and how the means of communication should be modified to address and take account of factors such as age, capacity, learning ability and physical ability

8.4 Be able to identify anxiety and stress in patients, carers and others and recognise the potential impact upon communication

8.7 Understand the need to provide service users or people acting on their behalf with the information necessary to enable them to make informed decisions.

122.    The Panel considered that fellow Paramedics would consider the Registrant's conduct in relation to all 5 charges to be deplorable.  The Panel concluded that, both individually and cumulatively, the matters found proved in Charges 1 to 5 fell far below the standard expected of a Paramedic and that misconduct was proved.

Current impairment

123.    Having found misconduct proved, the Panel next considered whether the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired.  The Panel took account of the legal advice it had received on its approach to the question of current impairment, together with the submissions of both parties. It considered all the information and documentation presented. The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment.

124.    The Panel was of the view that the misconduct it had found proved was serious. The Registrant’s inappropriate manner of communication with patients caused them distress. They did not receive the advice on the clinical issues for which they had attended their consultations. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions potentially undermined the confidence of these service users in the Paramedics profession and compromised the trust which is fundamental to the relationship between service users and healthcare professionals. 

125.    In respect of the personal component of impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel referred to the three questions identified at paragraph 27 of the Practice Note.  It first considered whether the misconduct in this case was remediable. In relation to the inappropriate communication issues, the Panel concluded that such conduct could be remediable in principle. However, it was mindful that the Registrant had been spoken to and advised about the manner of his communications before these incidents, as it heard from the Practice Manager, KW. The evidence therefore was that the Registrant did not take the opportunity to remediate his communication style.  

126.    The Panel considered there was some basis in the submissions of Mr Maughan that the Registrant’s communication issues could be attitudinal and behavioural and would therefore be more difficult to remediate.  The Panel further considered that dishonesty is attitudinal in nature and therefore more difficult to remedy.

127.    Reference had been made in the Registrant's own witness statement and in the submissions on his behalf to the possibility that he has ADHD. The Registrant referred to an assessment which suggested this. However, he had not provided any evidence, including medical evidence, confirming this issue.  As the Registrant had chosen not to attend this hearing, the Panel was not able to hear directly from him about it.  

128.    The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had taken action to remedy his misconduct.  With his witness statement, the Registrant had produced his cv, positive feedback from patients, the record of a conversation between the HCPC's solicitors and his most recent employer, a health centre.

129.    The Panel was informed that the Registrant has undertaken a course on professional boundaries in March 2023, an RCGP course on Allyship, an ELFH course on conflict resolution and a virtual interactive workshop on self-reflection and developing insight on 12 December 2024, probity for doctors, a virtual workshop run by MDDUS on 11 March 2025.

130.    The Panel took into account the information it had received that following his dismissal from the Surgery, the Registrant had a period of employment at a health centre where he worked without further issue, as confirmed in a communication from Ms AS to the HCPC’s solicitors dated 19 June 2024. 

131.    The Panel was mindful that an important factor is the Registrant’s insight into the past misconduct. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has shown a degree of insight in his response to the charges for the purposes of this hearing, as well as apologising when issues were initially put to him when he was still employed at the Surgery. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant has demonstrated a sufficient level of insight to give it confidence that the risk of repetition were the Registrant to practise again would be low. 

132.    The Panel concluded that the issues raised in this case have an attitudinal aspect. The Panel considers that while the Registrant has undertaken some reflection, he has not demonstrated that he understands the risk created by his behaviour and in particular, the impact on the service users concerned. 

133.    In relation to the issue of dishonesty, the Panel was concerned in particular by the fact that once he was expressly made aware of the obligation to inform the HCPC of his suspension and dismissal, and had indicated that he would do so, he still did not do so.  He did not seem to understand the importance of this obligation. 

134.    The Panel concluded that the Registrant has not yet demonstrated that his misconduct has been sufficiently remediated and there remains a risk of repetition in the future.

135.    In response to the questions posed at paragraph 13 of the Practise Note, the Panel concluded:

-    that the Registrant has in the past acted so as to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm;

-    that the Registrant has in the past breached fundamental tenets of the profession in relation to honesty, integrity and communication skills; 

-    that the Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly;

-    the Panel was not satisfied that it was highly unlikely that the conduct would be repeated.

136.    Given the insufficient insight and remediation, the Registrant has shown, the Panel concluded in respect of all four points that the Registrant remains liable to act similarly in in the future. 

137.    The Panel concluded in the light of the above that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of the personal component of current impairment.

138.    The Panel considered the public component of current impairment.

139.    The Panel concluded that, given its finding that the Registrant had not satisfactorily remediated his past actions and that he continues to present a risk, members of the public would expect this Panel to make a finding of current impairment. 

140.    The Panel also concluded that given the nature of the misconduct found proved in this case, the wider public interest considerations, namely the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper professional standards of conduct and the need to maintain public confidence in the paramedic profession, would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made in this case.

141.    The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and the public components of current impairment.

The HCPC’s submissions on sanction

142.    In summary, in his submissions, Mr Maughan referred the Panel to the principles relevant to its consideration of sanctions, referring to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (2 March 2026). He reminded the Panel that a sanction is not designed to punish the Registrant but may be required to protect the public. He referred to the requirement for the Panel to take a proportionate approach when deciding on sanction.

143.    Mr Maughan submitted that the conduct which the Panel had found proved was serious given the impact it had on the service users and given the dishonesty which had been found proved. Mr Maughan submitted that the Registrant was at least reckless in his unfiltered manner of communication with vulnerable patients.  This was repeated despite ample evidence that he needed to change. Whilst the Registrant’s written submissions for the hearing raised questions about the cause of his impetuous behaviour, he had presented no evidence to support this contention.

144.    Mr Maughan identified a number of mitigating and aggravating factors which the Panel might find were present in this case.  He confirmed that the Registrant has no previous or linked fitness to practise cases, which he said is to the Registrant’s credit given the longevity of his career.

145.    Mr Maughan said that the HCPC did not intend to propose a specific sanction to the Panel. However, he referred to the Sanctions Policy and reminded the Panel of the factors applicable to each of the sanction options.

146.    Mr Maughan said the HCPC's position is that this case is serious.  The Registrant’s conduct was repeated despite warnings. The Panel found that it was not satisfied that the Registrant has shown sufficient insight. Mr Maughan said that although there is no evidence that he has continued or repeated his conduct, the Registrant seems unwilling to resolve the matter as he has now retired and is living abroad. 

147.    Mr Maughan invited the Panel to give significant weight to the concerns in relation to the service users and their care.  He submitted that the sanction should underline that dishonesty towards the regulator is serious and unacceptable.

The Registrant’s submissions on sanction

148.    In his written submissions in respect of sanction, Mr Geering noted that the Registrant has retired but submitted that the Registrant has been a dedicated and caring practitioner who loved his profession. At one stage of his life, it was the only thing which helped get him through the day. 

149.    Mr Geering stated on behalf of the Registrant that after any sanction has passed, the Registrant wishes only to be able to leave the profession on his own terms and asked for that opportunity.

150.    In his witness statement dated 31 March 2026, the Registrant stated that he has taken retirement and moved abroad. He stated that he was pleased that he was able to finish his working days at the health centre where he last worked.  He felt he contributed and was a valued team member and this confirmed to him that he could and did work for many years of his career to high standards. 

151.    The Registrant said that he was truly sorry that the allegations which emerged from the Surgery should have become the focus of an HCPC investigation. He was saddened to find himself before the Conduct and Competence Committee and wished to apologise for the time and effort that had been incurred by many people involved in this process.

Panel Decision on Sanction 

152.    The Panel took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (2 March 2026). 

153.    The Panel was mindful throughout that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. The Panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

154.    In considering sanction, the Panel was reminded that a sanction is not intended to be punitive but may have a punitive effect.  A sanction may be necessary to protect the public and address the public interest.  

155.    The Panel also kept in mind the guidance given in the case of Bolton v The Law Society (1994)  that a profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires; that the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member; and that membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.

156.    The Panel was mindful throughout its consideration that any sanction it may decide to impose must be proportionate.  It must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.  

157.    The Panel referred to the guidance in the Sanctions Policy.  The Panel considered the seriousness of the matters found proved in this case and the Registrant’s culpability. The Panel was mindful that it had found proved serious deficiencies in the Registrant’s communication with three service users.  This was despite his having had previous warnings from the Surgery about his manner of communication.  Despite this, the Registrant had been unable or unwilling to amend his communication. The conduct was also serious because it resulted in emotional harm to vulnerable service users and put at risk their trust and confidence in the Paramedic profession. 

158.    The Sanctions Policy confirmed that dishonesty is a serious issue. In this case, the Panel considered the particularly serious aspect was that although the dishonesty related to a single issue, it extended over a period of time and involved two specific instances, the suspension and the dismissal, of which the Registrant should have informed the HCPC as soon as possible. The Panel took the view that dishonesty to the regulator is a serious type of dishonesty.  It was all the more serious in this case because when the obligation was expressly brought to the Registrant's attention, he made a deliberate decision to continue not to inform the HCPC promptly, thereby undermining the HCPC’s ability to monitor and regulate his conduct.

159.    In respect of both aspects, communication and dishonesty, the Panel had concluded that there remained a continuing risk to public protection and public confidence.

160.    The Panel considered that the following mitigating factors were present:

Mitigating factors

-    The Registrant demonstrated remorse and apology in respect of the service user communication issues at the time when they were brought to his attention. The Registrant has also shown remorse and apologised for his conduct for the purposes of this hearing, albeit he has not been present to express this directly to the Panel;

-    The Registrant has shown a degree of insight and an understanding of the concerns, although the Panel has found that overall, it remains insufficient;

-    The Registrant has undertaken relevant continuing professional development courses;

-    The Registrant has a long history of practice as a Paramedic with no previous fitness to practise history.

Aggravating factors

-    The emotional harm caused to vulnerable service users; 

-    In the case of Service User D, the risk of harm due to her history of self-harming behaviour; 

-    The issues related to communication with service users were repeated, despite these communication issues having previously been brought to the Registrant's attention;

-    There was a finding of serious dishonesty which was not a single instance but was repeated and occurred over a period of time;

-    The insight shown was considered to be insufficient by the Panel, particularly in relation to understanding the impact of the conduct on service users;

-    Some remediation had been undertaken, but the Panel had concluded it was insufficient and the Registrant has not demonstrated how he has applied the learning.

161.    The Panel took these factors into account when considering sanction. It was mindful that mitigation is of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings where protection of the public is the overarching consideration. The Panel concluded that the gravity of the aggravating factors in this case outweighed the mitigating factors.

162.    The Panel next considered whether it was necessary to impose a sanction. The Panel considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity in order to ensure its approach was proportionate.  It took into account the guidance in the Sanctions Policy which sets out factors which a panel should consider when deciding which, if any, sanction is appropriate.

No Action 

163.    The Panel concluded that in this case, to take no action would not sufficiently mitigate the risk the Panel had identified, nor would it maintain public confidence or act as a deterrent to the profession. The Panel determined that due to the gravity of its findings in this case a sanction was necessary in the public interest. 

Caution Order

164.    The Panel considered the factors in the Sanctions Policy in relation to a Caution Order.  It concluded that the issues in this case were not minor in nature. This was not an isolated matter. 

165.    The Panel had insufficient evidence of insight and remediation from the Registrant. The Panel had concluded that there remained a risk of repetition and that the Registrant continues to pose a risk of harm to the public. Further, the misconduct found proved in this case was too serious to be sufficiently marked by the imposition of a Caution Order.

Conditions of Practice 

166.    The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel had heard that the Registrant has retired and so is not currently working.  The Panel was mindful, according to the Sanctions Policy, that this did not preclude conditions of practice being workable. However, the Panel considered that that it would not be possible to formulate suitable conditions which would sufficiently protect the public and address the two forms of misconduct in this case.  

167.    The Panel noted the guidance at paragraph 154 of the Sanctions Policy which states that conditions will only be effective in cases where the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the Panel is confident, they will do so. In this case, the Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant would be willing and able to comply with conditions of practice as he had not chosen to attend this hearing and without full engagement from him, the Panel could not be sufficiently reassured that conditions could address the concerns or the risks.

Suspension

168.    The Panel considered whether a period of suspension would be appropriate in this case.  The Panel referred to paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had shown adequate insight.  It had not concluded that the issues relating to communication and dishonesty were unlikely to be repeated.
169.    The Panel noted that at paragraph 170, the Sanctions Policy states that suspension may be appropriate where “there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings, particularly in cases where the registrant has demonstrated they have begun to do so, or given a credible explanation for how they will do so”. 

170.    The Panel was not reassured that the Registrant would be able to remedy his past misconduct and in particular, he has not been present at this hearing and has not, even in his written submissions, provided a credible explanation for how he would do so. The Panel has been informed that the Registrant has now retired from practice.  

171.    After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the factors indicating that suspension would be appropriate were not in place in this case.

Striking off Order

172.    The Panel therefore considered a striking off order. The case involved failures in communication with vulnerable service users which resulted in emotional harm. 

173.    The Panel had found that the Registrant had acted dishonestly and that the dishonesty was repeated over an extended period. The Panel appreciated that dishonesty should be considered in a nuanced manner and that there are different levels of seriousness. The Panel concluded that this was a very serious instance of dishonesty because it involved not being honest and accountable to the HCPC as the Registrant’s regulator. This type of dishonesty goes to the heart of HCPC's role in regulating the profession.  It undermines the trust and confidence of the public in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator.

174.    The Panel finally concluded that the conduct found proved in this case is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.  The Panel determined that striking off is the appropriate and proportionate order in the Registrant’s case.

 

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Matthew Goodey 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

Application for an Interim Order:

1.    Mr Maughan made an application for an interim suspension order.  He referred to the Notice of Hearing dated 3 November 2025 which put the Registrant on notice that an application for an interim order may be made if the allegation was found proved and a substantive order was made by the Panel.  

2.    Mr Maughan’s application was for an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months, to cover the appeal period and the duration of any appeal.  The order was sought on the ground that such an order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

3.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that an interim order in these circumstances is discretionary.  The Panel must consider whether an interim order is necessary, applying the test set out in Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and must act proportionately.  This means balancing the public interest with the interests of the Registrant and imposing the lowest order which will adequately protect the public.

4.    The Panel was referred to the guidance in respect of immediate interim orders in the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note, Interim Orders.  

5.    The Panel considered the issue of proportionality and balanced the interests of the Registrant with the public interest.  

6.    The Panel first considered whether interim conditions of practice would be appropriate but concluded that conditions which would address the Panel’s concerns could not be formulated, for the same reasons as set out in its determination on the substantive sanction.  

7.    The Panel had determined to impose a substantive Striking Off Order.  Given the gravity of the issue and the sanction imposed, the Panel considered it would be inconsistent not to impose an interim order.  

8.    Accordingly, the Panel determined that an interim suspension order was necessary in order to protect the public and in the wider public interest.     

9.    The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate duration of the interim suspension order was 18 months, as the interim order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal within the 28-day appeal period. 

Interim Order:

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, or, if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, upon the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Matthew Goodey

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
13/04/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off