​​Stephen Doohan​

Preliminary Matters

Service 

1. The Panel was shown an unredacted bundle which included the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC Register. This set out his registered postal and email addresses. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing was sent by both post and email to those registered addresses by the HCPTS on 26 January 2026. The Notice of Hearing set out the date, time and type of hearing. The Panel also saw a proof of service by first class post to the Registrant’s registered address of the same date signed by one of the HCPTS scheduling officers and a Royal Mail Special Delivery document containing the Registrant’s registered postal address. There was also a confirmation of delivery of the email from Microsoft Outlook.

2. The Panel was satisfied, based on the documentation which it had seen, that the Registrant had received proper notification of the hearing in accordance with the relevant Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Buckell applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She relied on documentation which had been specifically prepared to support her application.  

4. Ms Buckell referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. She submitted that it was in both the public interest and in the interests of the victim that the hearing went ahead, given the very serious nature of the criminal offences involved. Ms Buckell submitted that the case should only be adjourned if there was a compelling reason which overrode the HCPC’s key objective of public protection.

5. Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend. She referred the Panel to the documentation which set out the efforts made by the HCPC’s external lawyers, Capsticks LLP (“Capsticks”), by the Prison where the Registrant is currently serving his sentence (“the Prison”), and by the HCPTS to attempt to assist with the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing. Specifically, Ms Buckell referred to a Telephone Attendance Note dated 31 March 2026 which records that when the Registrant was asked by prison staff if he wished to attend the hearing, he had indicated that he did not wish to do so. Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant had not asked for the matter to be adjourned and further submitted that it was unlikely that an adjournment would secure his attendance at a later date.  

6. Ms Buckell submitted that as the case involved both an allegation of ‘conviction’ and the statutory ground of ‘conviction’, there was little prejudice to the Registrant in not being present to give evidence at the fact-finding stage.  

Decision

7. The Panel was provided with a bundle of documents totalling 60 pdf pages which included:

1. Notice of hearing, proof of service and Certificate of the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC Register – all dated 26 January 2026.
2. Letter from Capsticks to the Registrant (via the Prison Governor) with disclosure dated 9 December 2025.
3. Royal Mail track and trace receipt dated 10 December 2025.
4. Email correspondence between the Registrant’s sister and the HCPC regarding receipt of letters dated 17 December 2025.
5. Email from the Prison to Capsticks confirming receipt of letters dated 13 January 2026.
6. Email correspondence between the Registrant’s sister and Capsticks regarding representation and the Registrant’s access to emails dated 10 February 2026.
7. Letter from Capsticks to the Registrant (via the Prison Governor) with the hearing bundle dated 4 March 2026.
8. Royal Mail track and trace receipt dated 5 March 2026.
9. Letter from Capsticks to the Registrant (via the Prison Governor) with Case Summary dated 18 March 2026.
10. Royal mail track and trace receipt dated 19 March 2026.
11. Email correspondence between the HCPTS and the Prison regarding the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing dated 30 March 2026.
12. Telephone Attendance Note regarding a call between Capsticks and the Prison dated 31 March 2026.
13. Email correspondence between the HCPTS and the Prison regarding the Registrant’s attendance dated 31 March 2026.
14. Email correspondence between Capsticks and the HCPTS regarding the Registrant’s attendance dated 31 March 2026.
15. Telephone Attendance Note regarding a call between the Prison and Capsticks regarding the Registrant’s attendance dated 31 March 2026.

8. The Panel received and accepted legal advice and followed the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.   

9. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve notice of the hearing on the Registrant. It noted that the Registrant’s entry on the HCPC Register had been updated to show his unique prison number and the address of the prison where he is currently resident.

10. The Panel also noted the following:

• that Capsticks had sent a letter by post to the Registrant’s registered address on 9 December 2025, and that a Royal Mail track and trace receipt dated 10 December 2025 confirmed that this had been delivered to the Prison.
• that Capsticks had also emailed the case papers to the Registrant at his registered email address on 9 December 2025. However, it had become clear from emails sent by the Registrant’s sister and his former representative that the Registrant had had no access to email at his registered email address from 7 July 2025, the date on which he was sentenced.
• that Capsticks had sent letters dated 4 March 2026 (enclosing the HCPC bundle for the hearing) and 18 March 2026 (enclosing the HCPC’s Case Summary) to the Registrant via the Prison Governor and that there were Royal Mail confirmations of delivery of each dated 5 March 2026 and 19 March 2026 respectively.
• that in a series of emails dated 30 and 31 March 2026 between (i) the HCPTS and the Prison, and (ii) Capsticks and the Prison, attempts were being made to facilitate the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing. It was apparent from these that had the Registrant wanted to attend, he could not do so via either MS Teams or via telephone. The only available platform used by the Prison Service was Webex Video which was used for court appearances. 
• that email correspondence and a Telephone Attendance Note dated 31 March 2026 between Capsticks and the Prison indicated that the Registrant had been asked by a member of prison staff if he wished to attend the hearing and he had indicated that he did not wish to do so.  

11. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Registrant of the hearing and to provide him with the relevant documentation for it. The Panel was of the view that although it had no direct information from the Registrant, it was prepared to rely on the report in the Telephone Attendance Note dated 31 March 2026 that the Registrant had declined to attend the hearing and that this was a voluntary and deliberate decision to absent himself from the hearing and a waiver of his right to attend.

12. The Panel was satisfied that an adjournment would serve no useful purpose as it was unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at a future date. There was no evidence that the Registrant had engaged with the HCPC during the proceedings and therefore no evidence to suggest that he would in future.  

13. The Panel accepted that there would be some potential disadvantage to the Registrant in not being present for the later stages of the hearing, should these be reached, but considered that as the case involved an allegation and statutory ground of ‘conviction’, there would be no disadvantage to him in not being present for the first two stages of the hearing relating to the finding of fact and the determination of grounds.  The Panel was satisfied that there was a clear public interest in the matter being heard, given the seriousness of allegation and interests of the victim in the matter being resolved expeditiously, which outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant.

14. In these circumstances, the Panel granted Ms Buckell’s application and decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.  

Background

15. The Registrant is a Paramedic registered with the HCPC.

16. On 16 May 2025, the Registrant pleaded guilty at the High Court in Glasgow to two offences, contrary to Sections 2 and 3 or the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. On 7 July 2025, the Registrant was sentenced to 10 years 6 months in cumulo (concurrent) for both offences, to start on 7 July 2025. He was required to be registered for life on the Sex Offenders Register and was made subject to an indefinite Non-Harassment Order in respect of his former partner.

17. The background to the offences comes from the sentencing remarks of the trial judge, Lord Matthews: 

“You met your victim while on holiday in Ibiza. You began a long-distance relationship with her despite the fact that you were already married.  She was Initially unaware of this, however, the relationship continued after you disclosed that to her. You would see each other approximately once a month. During the relationship, you told her that you did not want children.

She took a pregnancy test which revealed that she was pregnant. She told you that she was pregnant and that the child was yours.
  
The same day she travelled to Edinburgh to visit you. You discussed matters with her and agreed to keep the baby and rent somewhere to live together in Edinburgh. By that time, you had separated from your wife.  

That evening you engaged in sexual activity with her. The lights were off and she was lying on her back. You digitally penetrated her vagina and then pulled her down to the bottom of the bed. You were kneeling on the floor when she felt the mattress being moved. She thought nothing of this at the time. She then felt something hard being inserted into her vagina. She initially assumed that this was a sex toy and was not suspicious of your actions at that time.

The following day, she was out for lunch with you and felt a gush coming from her vagina. She went to the toilet to check what this was and observed what she described as a clumpy, chalky white substance on her underwear. You insisted that you see the white substance, telling her that it was vaginal discharge. She quickly dismissed this, given the texture of the substance. Soon thereafter she began to have stomach cramps and returned to your flat. 

Later that evening, she took diazepam to help with the pain she was experiencing from the stomach cramps. She described being in a deep sleep and woke to find you initiating sexual contact. Again, you pulled her to the end of the bed. She felt you, again, put your hand under the mattress, before inserting your fingers into her vagina. She felt something hard enter her vagina and thereafter the mattress being lifted. She was suspicious of your actions but still felt the effects of the diazepam.

A few hours later, you got up and went to the toilet. She took the opportunity to look under the mattress, finding a plastic syringe containing crushed tablets which had been pushed to the end of the syringe. Next to the syringe were two white tablets. 

Your victim then carried out an internet search for ‘abortion tablets’ which returned images that matched the tablets she had found beneath the mattress.

She confronted you over your actions. You initially denied what you had done, before admitting it, but telling her the tablets had not worked.  She checked your phone and found that you have been researching the topic of abortion.  

Two days later she attended the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with you due to the worsening paid from her stomach cramps. You told her that you would be arrested if she told the truth and you discussed with her that she would say she had obtained the tablets from ‘a friend of a friend’.

She did this and said she had attempted the termination herself but had since changed her mind. Before speaking to the medical staff, you rehearsed with her what she was going to say. The attending midwife recalled that she was distressed and concerned about the baby, yet you appeared quiet and expressionless.

You returned with her to your flat. She began to bleed heavily from her vagina and was in pain. 
The following morning, she passed out after taking a shower. She noticed the bleeding was getting heavier and she was in a lot of pain. You travelled with her to her home. 

Due to ongoing concerns, she attended the local hospital, accompanied by you and her sister. She asked her sister to ensure that you did not come into the examination room so that she could disclose the full circumstances to the medical staff. Blood samples were taken which showed decreasing levels of HCG hormone. She was told that she was having a miscarriage.  

In May 2023, your victim made a complaint to your then employer, the Scottish Ambulance Service. As a result of that investigation, the police were contacted and in due course you were arrested.  

The Scottish Ambulance Service investigation disclosed that the day she told you she was pregnant, your login accessed the misoprostol drug monograph on the Joint Royal College Ambulance Liaison Committee application. This as the only time that your login had been used to access this monograph since the application had been developed appropriately 3 years previously. 

The monograph accessed by you provides information relating to the use of misoprostol including reference to the presentation of the drug, possible side effects, preparation of the dose and guidance on dosage and administration.”

18. On 24 November 2025, a panel of the Investigation Committee referred the Allegation set out above to the Conduct and Competence Committee for final hearing. 

Decision on Facts

Evidence

19. In advance of the hearing, the Panel was provided with an HCPC bundle of 16 pdf pages, which included the following:

a.    the Notice of Hearing email dated 26 January 2026.
b.    the Notice of Allegation email dated 1 December 2025.
c.    the Extract of Conviction from the High Court in Glasgow dated 13 August 2025.
d.    the Sentencing Remarks taken from the Judiciary of Scotland website on 7 July 2025.  

Findings of fact

20. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. It was aware that the burden of proof was on the HCPC, and the standard of proof required was the civil standard, namely whether it was more likely than not that the alleged fact occurred.
 
21. The Panel considered the evidence put before it and the submissions of Ms Buckell on behalf of the HCPC.

Particular 1 was found proved

22. Having accepted legal advice that the Extract of Conviction dated 13 August 2025 from the High Court in Glasgow was conclusive proof that the Registrant had been convicted on 16 May 2025 of the offences set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation, the Panel found Particular 1 proved.

Decision on Grounds

23. Ms Buckell submitted that if the facts in relation to Particular 1 were found proved, it then followed that under Article 22 (1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the statutory ground of ‘conviction’ was also established. 

24. The Panel received and accepted legal advice.  Based on its finding that the Registrant had been convicted of the offences set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation, the Panel was satisfied that the statutory ground of ‘conviction’ was also proved.

Decision on Impairment    

Submissions

25. Ms Buckell referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and to the four questions set out in paragraph 13 and the factors relevant to the assessment of ‘seriousness’ set out in paragraph 15. Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the public and the personal component.

26. Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant posed a real risk of significant harm to the public. The conduct that led to the Registrant’s conviction had caused serious harm to the victim physically, as well as emotionally and psychologically, and that the Registrant was liable in the future to put service users at risk of unwarranted harm.

27. Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was a clear breach of a fundamental tenet of the Paramedic profession and that it had undermined public confidence in the profession. Ms Buckell submitted that service users were entitled to expect that the health professionals who treat them to act with integrity and that the regulatory process is robust, fair and transparent.  

28. In relation to the seriousness of the conviction, Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant was in breach of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and that his behaviour fell far below that expected of a registered health professional. Ms Buckell specifically referred to Standard 9.1 which states,

“You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

29. Ms Buckell submitted that as the Registrant’s conduct involved attitudinal issues there was a high risk that it would be repeated.   

Decision 

30. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel took account of Ms Buckell’s submissions. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel had in mind that the purpose of this hearing was not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but was to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.  

Personal component

31. In relation to the personal component, the Panel concluded that the facts which led to the conviction in this case, were, in principle, capable of being remedied. However, it acknowledged that it was more difficult, but not wholly impossible, for a registrant to remedy convictions which involved assault and sexual misconduct. The Panel noted that the most serious aspects of his criminal conduct had occurred in the Registrant’s personal life rather than when he had been acting in his professional role as a Paramedic, although it accepted that when the Registrant had accessed the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee application there had been a misuse of his  Scottish Ambulance Service authorisation.

32. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s acts had caused the victim not only physical harm but also ongoing emotional and psychological harm. The victim had suffered a painful miscarriage and was now living with the anguish of that miscarriage and the Registrant’s breach of trust towards her. 

33. The Panel had no information regarding the level of the Registrant’s insight into his convictions as he had not engaged with the proceedings. There was therefore no evidence that he understood why he had acted as he did, or how his actions had impacted on the victim, his colleagues, his employer, his profession and the wider public.
  
34. The Panel had no information that the Registrant was remorseful or that he had reflected on his convictions or taken any steps to remedy them. There was no evidence that the Registrant had apologised to the victim. The lack of this type of information and the Registrant’s lack of insight led the Panel to conclude that there was a real risk of repetition in this case.  

35. The Panel considered the risk of harm and concluded that in addition to the harm caused to the victim, the Registrant’s conduct risked harming the reputation of the Scottish Ambulance Service and the reputation of his profession. Paramedics treat vulnerable patients who might be put off accessing proper treatment if their confidence in the integrity of the profession and in the body which regulates it, is undermined.

36. As there was no evidence of any insight, apology, remorse, reflection or remediation and because there was therefore a risk of repetition, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

37. In relation to the public component, the Panel had no doubt that public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be very seriously damaged if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel was satisfied that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be extremely shocked and troubled if there was no finding of impairment where, using his knowledge as a paramedic, the Registrant had planned an illegal abortion by using unauthorised access to medical information via his workplace, had then deliberately and intentionally sexually assaulted his partner to abort their unborn child, and had later attempted to persuade her to take the blame for the illegal abortion. 
 
38. The Panel was satisfied that the conduct which had led to the Registrant’s conviction had brought the Paramedic profession into disrepute. The Panel also concluded that Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics was engaged and had been breached.  The Registrant had not made sure that his conduct justified the public’s confidence in him and in his profession when he had deliberately and intentionally set out on more than one occasion to sexually assault his former partner intending to abort their unborn child. The Panel was also of the view that the Registrant’s paramedic colleagues would be appalled by his criminal conduct.

39. The Panel was satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Paramedic profession if it did not find impairment in this case. Paramedics should be in no doubt that this sort of criminal behaviour is wholly unacceptable.  Integrity is a fundamental tenet of the profession. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s convictions breached that fundamental tenet and given the risk of repetition in this case, the Panel also concluded that there was a risk that the Registrant was liable to breach that fundamental tenet in the future. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component. 

40. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public component and that the Allegation was well founded.  

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

41. Ms Buckell referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and to the approach the Panel should adopt in considering whether to impose a sanction on the Registrant. Ms Buckell told the Panel that the Registrant had no previous regulatory history.  

42. Ms Buckell suggested that there were the following aggravating factors which the Panel should consider:

• the Registrant’s breach of his employer’s trust by accessing software to which he had access in his paramedic role.
• that the Registrant repeated his criminal conduct on two occasions.
• that the sentencing judge, in assessing culpability had referred to the Registrant’s having researched and planned what he did “before manipulating your victim and executing that plan under the guise of consensual sexual activity, abusing the position of trust you were in with her”.
• that there was no evidence of insight, remorse, reflection or remediation.

43. Ms Buckell suggested that the only potential mitigating factor was the reference to the Registrant’s remorse in the sentencing remarks.

44. Ms Buckell referred the Panel to those paragraphs of the Sanctions Policy which identified serious cases, including paragraph 108 (abuse of professional status), and paragraphs 130 – 132 (Criminal convictions and cautions).

Decision 

45. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction the Panel was referred to, and took account of, the guidance set out in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (2026 version). The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel was aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish the Registrant, although it might have that effect, but it was to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposed must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the conviction involved. 

46. The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in this case.

47. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors:

• the offences were premeditated and were repeated;
• the Registrant had breached his employer’s trust when he used software which he accessed in his role as a Paramedic to research the drugs he used in his criminal activity;  
• the Registrant had sought to persuade the victim to take the blame for taking the pills to abort their child;
• the Registrant had no insight, had shown no remorse for his conduct to the HCPC, had not apologised for or reflected on his convictions, or taken any steps to remediate them.

48. The Panel considered the seriousness of the conduct that led to the convictions and was satisfied that the criminal offences were very serious involving as they did, sexually assaulting his former partner with intent to abort their unborn child which had caused her serious physical harm and mental anguish. The Panel noted that even though the criminal offences occurred outside the Registrant’s professional role, it was satisfied that the Registrant poses an ongoing risk to public safety which undermines public confidence in the Paramedic profession. 

49. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. 

50. The Panel decided that to take no action would not be appropriate given that the conviction could not be described as “relatively minor in nature”.  The Panel considered that to ensure that public confidence in the profession was not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

51. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had in mind paragraph 147 of the Sanctions Policy which states: 

“A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:

• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation”

52. The Panel was satisfied that the conviction in this case was so serious that a Caution Order, which would allow the Registrant to remain in unrestricted practice, was wholly inappropriate. The Panel noted that the Registrant was at the start of serving a lengthy prison sentence for serious sexual offences and was required to be on the sexual offenders’ database for the rest of his life. It concluded that such a sanction would not provide the required level of public protection or ensure that public confidence in the Paramedic profession was not undermined.  

53. The Panel then went on to consider whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate in this case.  

54. The Panel considered the matters set out in paragraph 153 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

• the registrant has insight;
• the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed;
• there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and
• a panel is satisfied that a registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm.”

55. The Panel also had in mind paragraph 155, which states:

“Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:

• abuse of professional position, particularly when involving a vulnerable person:
• inclusion on a sexual offenders’ database,
• criminal convictions for serious offences.

56. The Panel also had mind paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy which refers to serious cases where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and was, as here, still serving a sentence at the time of the final hearing. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order was not only impractical in these circumstances but it was also inappropriate as (i) the Registrant had not shown insight, (ii) his lack of engagement with the proceedings did not indicate that he would comply with conditions, (iii) there were attitudinal issues so it was not possible to formulate appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions and (iv) the Registrant’s criminal conduct raised a number of the matters set out in paragraph 155 of the Sanctions Policy as listed in paragraph 55 above. The Panel therefore concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was insufficient to protect the public and maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession. 

57. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy: 

“169.   A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.

170.      Where a panel is considering suspension orders, it should first consider whether the conduct found proven indicates behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.  Examples of such cases are given in paragraph 179.  It still may be necessary to impose a striking off order if public protection and/or the wider public interest considerations require it.  If that is the case, the panel should not impose a suspension order, even where some or all of the factors listed below are present (this list is not exhaustive): 

These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors: 

• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; or
  
• 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.”

58. The Panel considered whether the conviction in this case indicated behaviour which was “fundamentally incompatible with continued registration” and concluded that it was. The criminal conviction involved premeditated and serious sexual assaults on the Registrant’s former partner on two occasions to abort their unborn child for which the Registrant is now serving a lengthy prison sentence and for which he will be on the sexual offenders’ database for the rest of his life. The Registrant had abused his professional role when he had accessed software to research the prescription drug misoprostol used to bring about the illegal abortion. The Panel had already found that the Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below the standards expected of a Paramedic and that he had breached Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.  

59. The Panel noted that the factors listed in paragraph 170 of the Sanctions Policy which might indicate that a Suspension Order was the appropriate sanction were absent in this case: (i) the Registrant lacked insight, (ii) there was a risk of repetition in this case which put the public at risk of harm and undermined public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, and (iii) there was no evidence to suggest that the Registrant was likely to be able to resolve or remedy his conviction. 

60. The Panel was satisfied that to maintain public confidence in Paramedic profession and in its regulatory process, and to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession, a Suspension Order was not the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.  

61. The Panel therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was a Striking Off Order. In reaching this conclusion the Panel weighed the Registrant’s interest in being able to practise with those of the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the public interest in this case outweighed any interest the Registrant may have to continue in due course to practise as a Paramedic.  

62. The Panel considered the Sanctions Policy where, in paragraph 179, it is stated that a Striking Off Order “will be appropriate for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts" which may include (this list is not exhaustive): 

• abuse of professional position, particularly when involving a vulnerable person;
• inclusion on a sexual offenders’ database;
• criminal convictions, cautions and community sentences for serious offences." 

63. The Panel also had in mind paragraph 180 which states:

“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate whether or not the conduct is included in the examples of such conduct in the list above, 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.  Some examples of such conduct include (this list is not exhaustive), where the Registrant:

• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct…….
• is unwilling to resolve matters.”

64. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant lacked insight and that his lack of engagement with the proceedings indicated that he was unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel was in no doubt that the serious nature of the Registrant’s offending was fundamentally incompatible with continued practice as a Paramedic.

65. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate order was a Striking Off Order.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Stephen Doohan from the Register on the date that this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. Ms Buckell applied for an Interim Order. Ms Buckell submitted that the Panel should proceed to hear the application in the absence of the Registrant as he had been put on notice of the application in the Notice of Hearing dated 26 January 2026. She submitted that for all the reasons she had advanced at the start of the hearing it was in the public interest to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as he had voluntarily waived his right to attend.  

2. Ms Buckell submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to facts and impairment and its reasons for imposing a Striking Off Order, an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months was necessary to protect the public from the potential risk of harm, and it was also in the wider public interest. Ms Buckell submitted that an Interim Suspension Order would be consistent with the Panel’s findings. Ms Buckell also submitted that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate in this case given the Panel’s decision on sanction.

Decision

3. The Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant had been served with notice that this application might be made in the Notice of Hearing letter dated 26 January 2026 which was sent by first class post to his registered address. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend and that it was in the public interest that this application should be considered.

4. The Panel decided to make an Interim Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. It was satisfied that the conviction provided the necessary basis for making an interim order. It was also satisfied, for all the reasons set out in its determination above regarding the serious nature of the conviction and the risk of repetition, that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and that it was otherwise in the public interest to maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour.

5. The Panel was satisfied, for all the reasons set out in its determination, that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate. The Panel considered that to impose such an Interim Order would be inconsistent with its conclusion that the Registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made in this case.  

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

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

History of Hearings for ​​Stephen Doohan​