Daniel Plant

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.    The Panel was referred to the Service documents provided by the HCPC, from which it noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 08 September 2025 (“the Notice”) had been served on the Registrant by email to his registered email address. The HCPC provided a certificate demonstrating the Registrant’s registered status and his registered email address.

2.    The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”) and the HCPTS Practice Note, Service of Documents. He advised that the Notice had to be sent to allow 28 days’ notice to the Registrant’s registered address. The obligation in respect of serving notice was to demonstrate that it had been properly sent, with the necessary information to allow the Registrant the opportunity to attend the hearing. 

3.    The Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the requirements of the Rules. 

Proceeding in absence

4.    The Registrant had not attended the hearing and was not represented. Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied to the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the proceedings related to events alleged to have occurred in 2023 and there was a need for expedition in dealing with proceedings. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant had been served with notice of the hearing and was voluntarily absent. 

5.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that, if proceeding, there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant. However, he had not taken the opportunity to submit any written representations. If the case was adjourned, it may not be re-listed for several months, due to length. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that this could impact on the memories of the HCPC’s witnesses, and it was not known if the witnesses who are due to attend would be available on the next date.

6.    The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, pursuant to Rule 11, the Panel had a discretion to proceed if it was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve notice of the hearing. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in Absence. He also referred the Panel to the cases of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, on the factors to consider. 

7.    The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been properly served and the Registrant was, or ought to be, aware of the hearing. It noted that the Registrant had not attended the previous Preliminary Hearing in October 2025. The Panel also noted that no representative had made contact on the Registrant’s behalf. The Panel had not been informed of any response from the Registrant to the Notice and it had no request to postpone or adjourn made known to it. 

8.    The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant would be at some disadvantage if the hearing proceeded, in that the Panel would not hear from him. The Panel took into account that the evidence of the internal investigation interview indicated some limited admissions on the Registrant’s part. However, the Panel would not hear the Registrant’s case or evidence about the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, if he did not attend. Since the Panel had no information about the Registrant’s intentions towards attending however, it had no information as to when or whether he would be in a position to attend any re-listed hearing.

9.    The Panel took into account that the Allegation alleged serious misconduct and raised serious issues of public protection. The Panel took into account that the HCPC’s witnesses were ready to give their evidence. In particular, Colleague B was deemed a vulnerable witness, and the Panel bore in mind that the allegations included alleged sexual misconduct against her. 

10.    Taking into account the lack of engagement by the Registrant, the serious nature of the Allegation, the position of the HCPC’s witnesses and the general public interest in dealing with proceedings expeditiously, the Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 

Application to rely on Hearsay Evidence

11.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied to the Panel to admit the HCPC’s evidence in relation to paragraphs 1a and 1b of the Allegation as Hearsay evidence. She referred to the written Skeleton Argument which the HCPC had provided in support of the application. 

12.    In the application, the HCPC applied to rely on the following pieces of evidence, despite the non-attendance and lack of a formal witness statement of Colleague A:

i.    The local statement of Colleague A which is undated (exhibit DL6);
ii.    Paragraphs 9 to 32 of the witness statement of JS dated 27 August 2024;
iii.     Paragraph 15 of the witness statement of DL dated 10 September 2024.

13.    The HCPC submitted that the Panel had a discretion to admit evidence, pursuant to Rules 10(1)(b) and 10(1)(c). Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note and also the judgement of the Court in Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin). 

14.    It was submitted that the Registrant had not provided any written response to the allegations in particulars 1a and 1b, although he had made some limited admissions in an interview in the employer’s internal investigation. It was submitted that other than those admissions, Colleague A’s evidence was the only direct evidence of events. 

15.    The HCPC submitted that Colleague A had made consistent complaints to JS shortly after the incident. It was further submitted that the Registrant had accepted the correctness of “most of that” in a written statement from Colleague A which had been put to him in the internal interview. The HCPC conceded that there was no good reason for Colleague A’s non-attendance, but submitted that all reasonable and proportionate attempts had been made to arrange her attendance. 

16.    It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the issue of fairness was key. It was submitted that, as he had not attended the hearing, there would in any event be no opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined. The Registrant’s partial admissions indicated that the extent of challenge to the witness’ evidence was limited. The HCPC submitted that there was ‘corroboration’ in the other hearsay evidence. 

17.    The HCPC submitted that, if the hearsay evidence was not allowed, it would not be able to prove particulars 1a and 1b, and this would frustrate its ability to protect the public. 

18.    The Legal Assessor set out Rules 10(1)(b) and 10(1)(c) for the Panel. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note Evidence and in particular the section on admitting hearsay evidence, in paragraphs 31 to 39. He also referred the Panel to Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) and in particular paragraphs 45 and 55 which set out a number of questions for the Panel to consider, much of which is reproduced in the Practice Note. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the key consideration is whether it is fair to admit the evidence, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. 

19.    The Panel took into account that the HCPC’s evidence included a ‘transcript note’ of the interview conducted on 27 October 2023 with the Registrant, as part of the internal investigation, which was exhibited by JS. It was JS’s evidence, according to his witness statement, that the Registrant had admitted, on being shown a statement of Colleague A that ‘most of that’ was true. According to the witness statement of DL, he received a statement from Colleague A about the incident alleged on 25 October 2023. He stated that the statement had been shown to the Registrant in the interview on 27 October 2023 and the Registrant had ‘accepted most of it’. 

20.    The Panel took into account that both witnesses, JS and DL, recalled in their evidence conversations directly with Colleague A in the former and via JS, in the latter case, in which Colleague A confirmed her complaint. Their evidence therefore went to the credibility and consistency of Colleague A, as evidence of a recent complaint.

21.    The Panel considered that the sole and direct evidence to support particulars 1a and 1b, came in the main from the unsigned statement provided by Colleague A to DL. However, it took into account that the statement had been prepared by Colleague A for the purposes of providing evidence to OSR. It was also the case that the statement had been put to the Registrant for comment in his interview. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s comments in his interview would be admissible on the basis of relevance and the interests of justice, and also formed some evidence about the allegations. 

22.    The Panel took into account that the allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour were serious matters. The allegations could have a serious impact on the Registrant’s registration, if proved. However, there was a strong public interest in the case being heard by the Panel, to investigate the allegations fully. The Panel took into account that there was not a good reason for Colleague A’s non-attendance. However, this was not an automatic bar to admissibility; the Panel had to engage with the question of fairness overall.

23.    The Panel was aware that Colleague A would not be cross-examined or questioned by the Panel, if her statement was admitted. However, due to the Registrant having not engaged with the hearing or being represented, there would not be an opportunity for cross-examination in any event. The Panel took into account that it would hear from both JS and DL, and the Panel would be able to ask them questions about both Colleague A and the Registrant’s responses to the accusations being put to him. 

24.    The Panel concluded that, in all the circumstances, it was necessary in order to protect members of the public to admit the evidence and it was also fair to admit it. The Panel agreed to admit the ‘hearsay’ evidence as requested by the HCPC.

25.    At the conclusion of the HCPC’s presentation of the evidence Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied to amend particular 5 by adding particular 1 to the allegation of breach of professional boundaries. 

26.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Rules are silent as to an express power to amend the Allegation. However, it had been ruled by the court in PSA v HCPC & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 that a panel may amend an allegation, in order to avoid injustice. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that there was no injustice caused to the Registrant, as the issue would have been apparent on the evidence from the outset. She submitted that sometimes the need for amendment arises having led all the evidence, but the amendment could be made fairly. 

27.    The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of PSA v HCPC & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319. He advised that it may have been apparent that the matters in particular 1 involved a breach of professional boundaries. However, the court’s ruling in Doree stated that amendment may be allowed to avoid undercharging. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant was not present to give his reply. However, the Panel should decide what was fair in the circumstances. 

28.    The Panel decided to allow the amendment. It considered that the matter of an alleged breach of professional boundaries was obvious on the evidence and the Registrant would have effectively been on notice of the HCPC’s case. The amendment broadened the ambit of the Allegation. However, the Registrant was not unduly prejudiced as a result. 

Background

29.    The Registrant is a paramedic registered with the HCPC. At the relevant times, the Registrant was employed by OSR Medical Ltd (“OSR”) in Manchester as a Paramedic. At various times, the Registrant worked with Colleague A, an Ambulance Technician and Colleague B, an Ambulance Care Assistant.

30.    Around 09 March 2024, the HCPC received a referral from JS, Training Coordinator for OSR. In the referral form, JS raised concerns about the Registrant’s conduct towards both Colleague A and Colleague B. An internal investigation had been carried out by OSR. 

31.    The concerns had been thereafter investigated by the HCPC and the Allegation formulated, as set out above. 

Evidence

32.    The HCPC relied on the evidence of the following witnesses, who provided their witness statements and gave oral evidence:

•    Colleague B – an ambulance care assistant, formerly of OSR;
•    JS – former Training Coordinator at OSR;
•    DL – former Managing Director at OSR.

33.    In addition, the HCPC was granted permission by the Panel to rely on the hearsay evidence of Colleague A, as above. The HCPC was also granted permission to rely on the reported comments of Colleague A to JS and DL, also as referred to above. 

34.    The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. 

Colleague B

35.    Colleague B gave evidence. In her witness statement, Colleague B explained that she had been working for OSR as an Ambulance Care Assistant at the relevant times. She had always worked shifts with either an Emergency Care Assistant, a Paramedic or a Technician. Colleague B had started at OSR at the end of September 2023. 

36.    Colleague B described that the staff would meet in the hospital car park where the ambulance vehicles were parked, at Bolton Hospital. She had worked with the Registrant in a three-man crew. Colleague B stated that the Registrant had come across from the start as “very inappropriate and very flirtatious”, but only around female staff. Colleague B described some inappropriate comments which she said had been made to her by the Registrant. 

37.    Colleague B stated that she had been working on a shift with a Dustin Norris. She had been standing next to the ambulance door with the door open and her hands on the driver’s seat, leaning in. She described an incident when the Registrant had walked up behind Colleague B, leaned over her and forced his penis up against her. 

38.    In oral evidence, Colleague B stated that she felt a forced brush-up against her and did not feel as if it had been accidental. She described that the Registrant had come up behind her, leaned over her shoulder, then pushed up. 

39.    In regard to the incident on 25 October 2023, Colleague B stated that the Registrant, sitting with her in the ambulance, asked Colleague B if she had tattoos on her leg. When told that Colleague B had a scar on her leg, she said the Registrant had pulled up her trouser on her left leg to just below her knee. Colleague B stated “the Registrant then said something along the lines of “I’d love to pull your trousers down, not up””. Colleague B stated that this had made her feel “weird”. She told the Panel that she found the comment to be inappropriate. 

40.    Colleague B made a further allegation that the Registrant had asked her about her sex life, in a conversation which had started when she was in the front of an ambulance, with the Registrant and TM present. She said TM had been on the phone to his wife. 

41.    Colleague B described a further incident on 25 October 2023, when she alleged the Registrant had touched her face. She stated that she had been in the Registrant’s car with the Registrant, TM and another crew member. Colleague B said that she had been seated in the back and asleep when she awoke to find the Registrant, who had been seated in the front, running his finger down her face. 

JS

42.    JS gave evidence to the Panel. In his witness statement, he stated that he had worked for OSR from January 2022 until its liquidation in January 2024. He had worked as a Training Coordinator, training staff up to the required level. He believed that there was a plan for the Registrant to join the OSR management team because he was an experienced paramedic.

43.    JS stated that Colleague A had reported an incident to him in which the Registrant had kissed her in the back of the ambulance. About two days later, he stated, Colleague A had divulged to him that there was more to the incident, and alleged that the Registrant had “exposed himself” to her. 

44.    JS told the Panel that Colleague A had reported the incident on 05 October 2023 to DL at his insistence. His evidence was that Colleague A was questioned by DL, but was upset at the questions. His evidence was that over a few weeks he was told that the matter was being investigated. He stated that he was informed by DL that a meeting with the Registrant would be conducted on 27 October 2023. 

45.    JS exhibited a note he stated he had taken of the meeting on 27 October 2023. JS stated that he no longer had a copy of the written statement prepared by Colleague A. He stated that during the meeting, the Registrant “stated that he accepted most of Colleague A’s statement”. JS stated that the Registrant had suggested that Colleague A had flirted with him and shown him nudes of herself on her phone. He stated that, afterward, Colleague A had denied the Registrant’s comments, saying the only thing she vaguely recalled had been beach pictures on her Instagram account which she thought the Registrant may have seen when Colleague A was on her phone. 

46.    JS stated that during the meeting a statement from Colleague B was read out in the meeting. He stated that the Registrant had merely brushed Colleague B’s leg whilst reaching for a biscuit. 

DL

47.    DL gave evidence. He was the Managing Director of OSR. In his witness statement he stated that he first became aware of concerns with the Registrant at OSR when Colleague B came to him on 26 October 2023. He stated that he thereafter spoke to JS, who informed him about Colleague A’s allegation. 

48.    DL stated that he then spoke to Colleague A and asked her to provide a written statement, which he exhibited. It was DL’s evidence that Colleague A’s written statement had been put to the Registrant in the internal interview.

49.    In the internal interview, DL said the Registrant had accepted most of what Colleague A had said. He said that he had been taken aback by the Registrant’s acceptance. DL told the Panel that he had provided a copy of the transcript note of the internal interview of the Registrant conducted on 27 October 2023 to the Registrant. He said that, to the best of his belief, the Registrant had emailed back to say he accepted the contents. DL did not exhibit the Registrant’s email but thought that he could locate it. 

50.    The Panel agreed to admit into evidence the written statement provided to DL of OSR in around 26 October 2023 by Colleague A concerning an incident on 05 October 2023. The statement was exhibited by DL. He confirmed the exhibit was a copy of the statement received from Colleague A.

51.    The statement set out that on 05 October, Colleague A had been working with the Registrant as part of a 2-man crew on and Urgent care shift in the Greater Manchester area. Throughout the day, the Registrant had made inappropriate comments to Colleague A saying how they were “turning him on” and that they were “teasing him”. Colleague A stated that she did not believe that she was doing anything out of the ordinary. 

52.    The statement described how, when Colleague A was in the rear of the ambulance, she had turned to encounter the Registrant standing behind her. It was stated that the Registrant had “his arms at either side of my face preventing me leaving. He then grabbed my face with both of his hands and began kissing me. I then shouted “Get off me” and attempted to push him away. [The Registrant] then began to attempt to lift my shirt up.” Colleague A described escaping the vehicle out of the side door, with the Registrant following. She described the Registrant saying “What am I going to do with this now?” and, as Colleague A turned round, the Registrant’s trousers were undone and “he had his penis exposed”. Colleague A stated that they both got into the front of the ambulance and did not speak for the rest of the shift. 

53.    Colleague A described having received numerous WhatsApp messages from the Registrant and multiple attempted phone calls, following the event. Colleague A described being unwilling to work shifts in the area in which the Registrant worked subsequently. She was concerned about repercussions from making a report. 

54.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the burden of proof lay on the HCPC. She drew the Panel’s attention to the evidence in support of each of the particulars. She submitted that, although the Panel had not heard directly from Colleague A, it had her written statement to OSR. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referenced section 4(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the relevant factors for assessing the weight of ‘hearsay’ evidence. 

Submissions and Legal Advice

55.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the statement had been made close in time to the event, there was no evidence to suggest a motive to misrepresent matters and there was no reason to believe the statement had been edited or made in collaboration with others. 

56.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that Colleague B was a credible witness and was consistent. She submitted that there was no evidence of collusion between Colleague A and Colleague B, although there was evidence that they had spoken, after Colleague A had contacted DL about her experience. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant’s conduct had breached professional boundaries, had been sexual in nature and was sexually motivated conduct. 

57.    The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the burden of proving the facts in the Allegation lay on the HCPC, to prove the facts ‘on the balance of probabilities’. He referred the Panel to the cases of R(Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin). 

58.    Regarding the reference in the Allegation to ‘sexual nature’ and ‘sexual motivation’, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the cases of Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763 and Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 5050 (Admin). He also referred the Panel to PSA v GMC & Garrard [2025] EWHC 318 (Admin) concerning the extent to which the Panel’s consideration might involve the cross-admissibility of allegations. 

Decision on Facts

Particular 1a

59.    JS gave evidence that Colleague A had reported to him that the Registrant had kissed her in the back of the ambulance and later that the Registrant had exposed himself to her. DL gave evidence that JS had reported an incident to him, although he did not accept that Colleague A had directly reported to him before he spoke with JS, contrary to JS’s evidence. 

60.    Although the evidence of these witnesses conflicted over when Colleague A had reported the incident to DL, the both agreed that Colleague A had made a report to DL, and had provided a written statement. 

61.    Both witnesses referred to the written statement prepared by Colleague A about the incident. They both confirmed that the undated statement exhibited by DL was the statement made by Colleague A. Both JS and DL confirmed that the Registrant had been shown Colleague A’s statement at the internal interview on 27 October 2023, and that the Registrant had accepted ‘most of’ what was contained. 

62.    JS’s evidence was that he had prepared a transcript note (“transcript note”) of the internal interview on 27 October 2023. DL told the Panel that he had provided a copy to the Registrant. He believed that the Registrant had acknowledged the transcript note. 

63.    The Panel took into account that the exhibited written statement from Colleague A was undated and unsigned. However, the Panel also took into account that the statement had been made at the employer’s request. The contents of the statement were consistent in outline with the complaint that JS had stated that Colleague A had reported to him. The Panel found that the exhibited statement was an account from Colleague A of the incident. It also found that this was the statement which had been put to the Registrant in his internal interview. 

64.    Taking into account that Colleague A’s note was ‘hearsay’ evidence, the Panel also noted that the contents were consistent with the report to JS. Although not made immediately after the incident, the Panel took into account that the statement had been written in the same month. As a statement made in response to a request from Colleague A’s employer, the Panel was of the view that Colleague A would have been aware that it should be true and correct.

65.    The Panel took into account that, faced with the statement in interview, the Registrant had raised no significant objection to its contents, according to the transcript note. The Panel took into account that, before the statement was written, on Colleague B’s evidence, Colleague B had spoken with Colleague A at the suggestion of Mr Norris. However, the Panel balanced this with the fact that, by this time, Colleague A had already reported her concern to JS orally, and the Registrant did not seek to contradict the statement.

66.    The Panel concluded that it could place weight on the content of the written statement of Colleague A, exhibited by DL. The statement set out that the Registrant had followed Colleague A into the back of the ambulance, come up behind her and grabbed her face, kissing her. It was clear that Colleague A had not consented to the kiss. 

67.    The Panel considered the response of the Registrant to Colleague A’s statement in the internal interview. It was noted that DL read the statement out and asked for the Registrant’s ‘input’. The note recorded the Registrant’s response: “I would accept most of that, however I would say [Colleague A] did flirt with me, she showed me nudes of herself on her phone.” The Registrant went on to suggest that Colleague A had flirted with him, including being physically in contact at one point. The Registrant stated at a later point that Colleague A had not told him to ‘stop’ and “it was just a peck on the lips” although he recognised that “her manner did change”.

68.    The Panel heard from JS, who had prepared the note. The Panel took into account that JS had said that he considered at the time Colleague A and himself to have been in a personal relationship, although they ‘kept it out of’ work. The Panel considered whether this would have affected his impartiality in taking the note. Having heard JS give evidence, however, and taking into account that DL had said that the Registrant did not take issue with the content of the transcript note, the Panel considered that JS was a reliable note-taker and the transcript note could be relied on. 

69.    The Panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A’s report to JS, the written statement from Colleague A, which were consistent. It noted that Colleague A had repeated her complaint to DL. The Panel also took into account that, according to the transcript note, the Registrant accepted most of what was in the exhibited written statement of Colleague A. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that Colleague A’s account in her written statement was true, and that the Registrant had kissed her without Colleague A’s consent on 05 October 2023.

70.    The Panel found particular 1a proved.

Particular 1b

71.    The Panel, for similar reasons as set out above in relation to particular 1a, also accepted Colleague A’s account in her exhibited written statement was true. It noted that the Registrant made no significant objection to the contents of Colleague A’s statement when read out. The Panel accepted Colleague A’s written statement as a reliable account. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Registrant had exposed his penis to Colleague A on 05 October 2023.

72.    The Panel found particular 1b proved. 

Particular 2

73.    In respect of particular 2, the Panel had received evidence from Colleague B. Colleague B having made a complaint about the Registrant was supported by the evidence of DL, although his account, as far as he could recall, was that Colleague B said the Registrant had “brushed past” her and touched her bottom with his hand. 

74.    Colleague B’s evidence was supported by an exhibited WhatsApp message from DN. His message said:

“I notices the one morning when starting of shift when [Colleague B] had lent through the cab from driver side, Daniel went behind [Colleague B] and brushed himself against her and touched her buttox region…” [sic]

75.    The Panel noted that a written statement had been provided to DL by Colleague B around 26 October 2023 and had been read to the Registrant in interview. Unfortunately, the statement was not made available to the hearing. In the transcript note, the Registrant was recorded as saying that he did not recall brushing up against Colleague B. He said that the other two crew had been seated in the front and he had leant across. 

76.    The Panel considered the submissions on the potential cross-admissibility of the evidence relating to Colleague A and Colleague B’s experience. It took into account that Colleague B’s evidence had been that she had spoken with Colleague A after the incident on 21 October 2023, at the suggestion of DN. The Panel acknowledged that there was no suggestion that the colleagues had colluded in any way. However, in light of them having had contact, the Panel decided that it should consider the evidence relating to incidents separately. 

77.    The Panel considered that, although it had not heard directly from Mr Norris, the WhatsApp message supported Colleague B’s account. The Panel had heard Colleague B give evidence. It considered Colleague B to be a credible and reliable witness. Having heard Colleague B give evidence, the Panel accepted her evidence as clearly and straightforwardly given. The Panel found it was more likely than not that the Registrant had, whilst clothed, pushed his penis against Colleague B’s bottom.

78.    The Panel found particular 2 proved. 

Particular 3a

79.    The Panel was provided with exhibited WhatsApp messages exchanged between Colleague B and the Registrant. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had been engaged as a Lead Paramedic. According to the evidence of JS, the expectation had been that the Registrant was to take on a managerial role at OSR. Bearing that in mind, the nature of the exchanges showed a high level of informality and occasional inappropriate exchanges, including that many of the messages were marked “xx” or with ‘emojis’.

80.    The Panel noted that, in the transcript note there was reference to Colleague B’s allegation being put to the Registrant in the interview. He said that Colleague B had mentioned cutting her leg on a wallpaper scraper. He said that Colleague B then showed the scar and began “taking her pants off”. He was asked by DL whether, as the registered professional he would report this behaviour, but dismissed this as “banter”. The Panel noted the Registrant’s concerning attitude towards conduct between his colleagues, according to his account.

81.    The Panel took into account that it had found that the Registrant had behaved inappropriately towards Colleague B on 21 October 2023, a matter of days before. There were similarities in the other behaviour proved and the intent of the words alleged. The Panel considered that the evidence supported a propensity for the Registrant to behave inappropriately towards Colleague B. The Panel had heard Colleague B give evidence and considered her to be a credible witness. The Panel concluded that it was more likely than not, in all the circumstances, that Colleague B was correct and the Registrant had moved the leg of her trouser up to her knee and had said to her that he would love to pull her trousers down, or words to that effect.

82.    The Panel found particular 3a proved. 

Particular 3b

83.    The Panel noted that the circumstances which Colleague B described were that the Registrant had stroked her face in the presence of other staff, when Colleague B had fallen asleep in the Registrant’s car. She referred to TM telling her afterward that the Registrant had been inappropriate.

84.    The Panel noted that, in the transcript note, it had been recorded that the Registrant had admitted the matters of “statement 4”. Although the Panel did not have the detail of this statement in the evidence, it was apparent from the transcript note that the Registrant referenced having visited a patient who had a bearded dragon and a spider. He referred to Colleague B saying how she hates spiders. The Registrant stated how “me and [TM]” had “wound her up on the way”. The Registrant admitted that “again its that line between banter and professionalism. And I did cross that line I think.” He referenced himself and TM putting a “ben” on Colleague B’s neck.

85.    The Panel, not having been provided with statement 4, was unclear exactly what this admission referred to. However, it did note the Registrant’s reference to an admission of crossing the line. It considered that this was some evidence of the Registrant having been prepared to act inappropriately.

86.    The Panel had heard Colleague B give evidence and had found her to be a credible witness. It took into account that it had found that the Registrant had behaved inappropriately towards Colleague B on 21 and 25 October 2023. The Panel considered that there was a tendency established that the Registrant behaved inappropriately towards Colleague B. The Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that the Registrant had touched Colleague B’s face as she described. 

87.    The Panel found particular 3b proved.

Particular 4

88.    Colleague B had stated in her witness statement that the Registrant had said these words to her. She had clarified in her oral evidence that this had occurred on 25 October 2023. She said that she had been present in the ambulance with the Registrant and TM, who had been on the phone to his wife. Colleague B said the words made her feel uncomfortable. 

89.    The Panel observed the WhatsApp message exchanges between the Registrant and Colleague B around this time and noted their inappropriate nature. The Panel had found Colleague B to be a credible witness. The Panel considered that it was more likely than not that the Registrant had said these words to Colleague B.

90.    The Panel found particular 4 proved.

Particular 5

91.    The Panel had found the conduct alleged in respect of each of particulars 1 to 4 inclusive of the Allegation proved (including the sub-particulars). The Panel next went on to consider whether, in respect of each of those particulars, the Registrant had breached professional boundaries.

92.    The Panel considered Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (“the Standards”), which states:

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

93.    The Panel was of the view that this embraced a requirement on the Registrant to act at all times professionally towards service users and his colleagues. 

94.    The Panel was in no doubt that the acts of kissing Colleague A without her consent and exposing his penis to her crossed the boundary of acceptable professional boundaries. 

95.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant pushing his penis against Colleague B’s bottom without her consent, commenting that he would like to pull her trousers down, stroking her face without her consent and asking Colleague B about her sex life also crossed the boundary of professional boundaries. 

96.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had breached professional boundaries in respect of each of particulars 1 to 4 inclusive of the Allegation proved (including the sub-particulars).

97.    The Panel found particular 5 proved in respect of each of particulars 1 to 4 inclusive.

Particular 6

98.    Particular 6 required the Panel to consider whether, in respect of each of the factual findings in particulars 1 to 4, the Registrant’s conduct had been either ‘sexual’ and/or ‘sexually motivated’.

99.    The Panel accepted the legal advice that, for behaviour that was alleged as ‘sexual’ the best evidence may be the conduct itself. The Panel considered that it may be able to infer the conduct and should consider all the relevant surrounding circumstances and facts found proved.

100.    The Panel accepted the legal advice that ‘sexual motivation’ means conduct which is done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Panel considered each of the findings in turn.

Particular 1

101.    The Panel considered the Registrant’s kissing Colleague A in the context of the facts that he had followed her into the back of the ambulance, effectively trapping Colleague A. The Registrant had suggested that this had been in response to her ‘flirting’ with him earlier. The kiss had been followed by the Registrant exposing himself. 

102.    The Panel was satisfied that the kiss had been an overtly sexual act, as an ‘opening gambit’ to start a sexual encounter. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant was both gaining sexual gratification from the kiss and seeking to pursue a sexual relationship, putting the kiss in context.

103.    The Panel decided that the conduct found proved in particular 1a was sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

104.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant exposing himself was overtly sexual in nature and clearly an attempt to draw Colleague A into a sexual relationship.

105.    The Panel decided that the conduct found proved in particular 1b was sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

Particular 2

106.    The Panel was of the view that, in pushing his penis against Colleague B’s bottom without her consent the Registrant’s act was overtly sexual in nature. Further, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been obtaining sexual gratification from the physical contact.

107.    The Panel decided that the conduct found proved in particular 2 was sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

Particular 3

108.    In respect of particular 3a, the Panel considered that the words “I’d love to pull your trousers down not out” or words to that effect had suggested that the Registrant wished to remove Colleague B’s clothing and was overtly sexual. Further, the comment suggested that the Registrant would ‘love’ to do so, and the context indicated sexual gratification. The Panel considered that the words also indicated a desire on the Registrant’s part to enter into a sexual relationship with Colleague B.

109.    The Panel decided that the conduct found proved in particular 3a was sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

110.    The Panel considered the context in which the Registrant had touched Colleague B’s face. Colleague B said that she had been asleep and woke to find the Registrant touching her face with his hand. There had been others present. Colleague B did not describe any further action by the Registrant, or words said. 

111.    The Panel considered that this had been inappropriate behaviour. However, it did not consider that this action was overtly sexual, nor in the circumstances could it infer a sexual motivation rather than that the Registrant had been merely acting inappropriately.

112.    The Panel was not satisfied that the conduct found proved in particular 3b was sexual in nature or sexually motivated.

Particular 4

113.    The Panel considered that the Registrant asking Colleague B about her sex life was overtly sexual and, in view of the subject, had been the Registrant opening up the inappropriate topic of conversation with a junior female colleague. The Panel considered that the Registrant was likely to have gained sexual excitement from the conversation.

114.    The Panel decided that the conduct found proved in particular 4 was sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

115.    The Panel therefore found that, in respect of particulars 1a, 1b, 2, 3a and 4, the Registrant’s conduct had been both sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

Decision on Misconduct and Impairment    

116.    Having found facts proved in the Allegation, the Paned next considered whether its findings amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct and, if so, whether it determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Registered Paramedic is impaired. 

117.    The Panel was mindful that at this stage the decision on all matters was for the Panel’s judgement, not involving a burden or standard of proof. 

118.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson drew the Panel’s attention to the evidence of Colleague B and DL. She submitted that the Registrant had been required to follow the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016 version) (“the Standards”). Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to find that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

119.    On the matter of impairment, Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant’s misconduct is remediable. However, she submitted, the Registrant had provided no evidence of remediation. 

120.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel might find that the Registrant’s conduct was underpinned by attitudinal issues such as a lack of respect for female members of staff and/or a lack of appreciation of professional boundaries. She submitted that the evidence of JS indicated a degree of ‘victim-blaming’ by the Registrant. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that attitudinal issues are harder to remediate. 

121.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel should also consider the ‘public’ component of impairment, which had three aspects. These were the need to protect service users, to maintain professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the profession. 

122.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the fact that the Registrant had committed sustained misconduct against two colleagues indicated a risk of repetition. She submitted that maintenance of public confidence in the profession and professional standards required a finding of impairment. 

123.    The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that misconduct is a ground for finding impairment in the Health Professions Order 2001 (as amended) (“the Order”). He advised that whether the Panel’s findings of fact amounted to misconduct and impairment are matters for the Panel’s judgement. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment. 

124.    To find the statutory ground, the Legal Assessor advised that the Panel had to satisfy itself that the findings of fact amounted to serious professional misconduct. If the Panel found misconduct, he advised, it should go on to consider whether the Registrant posed a risk of repeating his misconduct. The Panel must also consider the ‘public’ component and whether the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of professional standards required a finding of impairment. He referred the Panel also to the formulation for considering impairment from CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), taken from Dame Janet Smith’s 5th ‘Shipman’ report.

Decision of the Panel

125.    The Panel considered its findings of fact. It bore in mind that, to amount to misconduct as a statutory ground it had to be satisfied that the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. Not all misconduct will be serious. The decision on seriousness is for the Panel. 

126.    The Panel considered and was guided by the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment (“the Practice Note”). The Panel also took into account the HCPC’s Standards (2016 version). 

127.    The Panel considered its findings in respect of particular 1 of the Allegation. It was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct on 05 October 2023 towards Colleague A, in kissing her without her consent and going on to expose his penis to her, was an extremely serious occurrence as well as a serious falling short of professional standards. The Panel had additionally found that the behaviour had been both ‘sexual’ in nature and sexually motivated. 

128.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had seriously breached Standard 9.1, i.e. the obligation to ensure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. The Panel was clear that fellow professionals would find the Registrant’s conduct deplorable. The Registrant’s conduct in both particulars 1a and 1b was serious professional misconduct. 

129.    In particular 2, the Panel had found that the Registrant had pushed his penis against Colleague B’s bottom without her consent, having come up behind her and leant over her. The Panel had heard from Colleague B that she, a junior colleague of the Registrant, had been upset by this behaviour. The Panel again found that his behaviour fell far below the conduct expected of a Registered Paramedic. Further, the conduct had been found to be both ‘sexual’ in nature and sexually motivated. The Panel was clear that fellow professionals would also find this conduct to be deplorable. The Registrant’s conduct in particular 2 was serious professional misconduct. 

130.    In particular 3a, the Panel had found that the Registrant had made an overtly sexual comment to Colleague B, a junior colleague. This had been clearly sexual in nature, sexually motivated and breached the professional boundaries between colleagues. The Panel found that this fell far below the expected standard. The Registrant’s conduct in particular 3a was serious professional misconduct.

131.    The Panel considered that the Registrant having touched Colleague B’s face, as found in particular 3b, had been inappropriate but the Panel had not been satisfied as to the sexual nature or sexual motivation in this instance. Whilst this was unpleasant and inappropriate behaviour which fell below standards, the Panel, considering this, as a single act, did not find it went so far below standards as to amount to serious professional misconduct. 

132.    The Panel considered that the comment by the Registrant, asking Colleague B about her sex life, as found in particular 4 had breached professional standards, was sexual in nature and sexually motivated. Taking this into account, and also that the Registrant was senior to Colleague B, the Panel found that this fell far below the expected standard. The Registrant’s conduct in particular 4 was serious professional misconduct.

133.    The Panel, having found misconduct, next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel started by considering the seriousness of the case, in particular taking into account the factors in the Practice Note. 

134.    The Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct, in particular in relation to the actions towards his female colleagues, in kissing Colleague A without her consent, exposing himself to her and pushing his penis against Colleague B were extremely serious departures from standards of professional behaviour. In addition, the sexualised comments made towards Colleague B, who was junior in position to the Registrant, comprised a serious departure from expected conduct. 

135.    The Panel considered that the conduct, as well as being alarming to his colleagues, also impacted public confidence in the profession, as members of the public who might learn of it would be shocked to consider that a professional Paramedic acted in such a manner. This put the Registrant clearly in breach of Standard 9.1.

136.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had caused harm to both Colleague A and Colleague B by his acts. The Panel had heard evidence directly from Colleague B as to how she had been affected by the misconduct. It had also heard evidence that Colleague A had refused to work with the Registrant thereafter and had moved area. 

137.    The Panel also recognised that the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct towards his colleagues was capable of imperilling public safety, in that the incidents threatened the ability of colleagues to work together safely and effectively for the benefit of the public.

138.    The Panel noted that the Allegation involved multiple sexually motivated actions directed towards two female colleagues of the Registrant who had a right to be treated with dignity and respect. The Panel noted that the Registrant, as the qualified Paramedic and intended for a managerial role, had been in a senior position to both Colleague A and Colleague B. 

139.    The Panel took into account that the misconduct found had all been sexual in nature and sexually motivated. The Panel considered that the repeated acts were of a predatory nature by the Registrant, amounting to unwanted sexual advances by him. 

140.    The Registrant had not provided to the Panel any evidence of insight or remediation. As far as the Panel was aware, the Registrant has not engaged with the hearing. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had accepted some of his conduct, according to the evidence of the internal interview on 27 October 2023 at OSR. However, the Panel also considered that this was balanced by indications that the Registrant was attempting to place responsibility in part on Colleague A, in respect of the incident on 05 October 2023. 

141.    The Panel had no information about any remediation undertaken by the Registrant, nor any reflections on the Allegation. 

142.    The Panel considered that there was a very high level of seriousness to the case.

143.    The Panel was of the view that, whilst it was not impossible to remediate, the sexually motivated misconduct in this particular case would be hard to remediate. Taking into account that there were a number of allegations of sexually motivated misconduct carried out against two female colleagues, there were clear indications of attitudinal and behavioural problems on the part of the Registrant. 

144.    Bearing in mind that sexual misconduct would be hard to remediate, the Panel has no information at all provided by the Registrant concerning any attempts at reflection the gaining of insight or any other remediation or learning undertaken. 

145.    The Panel’s conclusion, taking into account the seriousness of its findings, is that there is a high likelihood of the Registrant repeating his past misconduct. On that basis, the Panel’s conclusion is that the Registrant is currently impaired, on the ‘personal’ component of impairment. 

146.    Further, the Panel was mindful of the overarching objective of public protection, and the need: 

(a)    to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public;

(b)    to promote and maintain public confidence in the professions regulated under the Order; and

(c)    to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.

147.    The Panel was also mindful of the formulation of impairment, from the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant. Although there was no evidence of direct patient harm, the Registrant had imperilled public safety by undermining the professional relationship with his colleagues. 

148.    The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions had risked bringing the profession into disrepute with the public and had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel had also found that there was a risk of repetition of the misconduct.

149.    The Panel concluded that the misconduct found in this case made it necessary to make a finding of impairment in order to uphold the important public interests in the overarching objective. 

150.    The Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, on the ‘public’ component of impairment. 

Decision on Sanction

151.    The Panel having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, next considered its powers under Article 29 of the Order and any sanction which it needed to impose for public protection. 

152.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel had found the Registrant to have committed repeated acts of sexually motivated misconduct against more than one complainant. She submitted that JS had mentioned, in his evidence, the Registrant’s limited insight into his behaviour. 

153.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Panel had no reflective piece from the Registrant, in terms of remediation of misconduct. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made reference to the Panel’s finding that the Registrant had imperilled public safety by threatening the ability of colleagues to work together safely. 

154.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson acknowledged that the Registrant had demonstrated some limited insight during the local investigation of the complaints. She invited the Panel to be guided by the HCPC Sanctions Policy and impose a proportionate and appropriate sanction. 

155.    The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel should consider its powers under Article 29 of the Order. The Panel should have regard to the Sanctions Policy (March 2019) issued by the HCPC (“the Sanctions Policy”). He advised that, pursuant to Article 29(3) the Panel may consider mediation or taking no action. Otherwise, the Panel should consider its powers under Article 29(4). 

156.    The Legal Assessor advised that, in order to act proportionately and if it decided to impose a sanction, the Panel should impose the least restriction which met the level of impairment. He advised that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish but to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel must balance the Registrant’s interests with the public interest. 

Panel’s Decision

157.    The Panel gave careful consideration to its findings as to the facts, misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise. It referred to the Sanctions Policy for guidance in its decision-making. 

158.    The Panel considered whether there were particular factors which mitigated or aggravated the seriousness of the case. The Panel noted that the Registrant had made some admissions and concessions as to his conduct but it balanced this with his comments which indicated his view that Colleague A had been ‘flirting’ with him, which the Panel felt was an inappropriate attempt to shift the blame.

159.    The Panel found that it aggravated the case that there had been more than one incident of sexually motivated conduct. The conduct had been directed towards more than one of the Registrant’s junior colleagues. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct had been predatory behaviour, in that the Registrant appeared to have engaged in breaches of professional boundaries over a course of text messages with his conduct and misused opportunities at work to engage in the sexually motivated misconduct. 

160.    The Panel took into account the instances where the Registrant had physically acted in a sexually motivated manner. On one occasion he had kissed Colleague A and exposed his penis to her, and on another he had pushed his penis against Colleague B’s bottom. The Panel was clear that the Registrant’s misconduct was at the higher end of a scale of seriousness.

161.    The Panel first considered whether the case was suitable for mediation. However, it took into account that the Registrant had not engaged with the proceedings, and it had no reason to believe that he would engage with mediation. More importantly, however, the Panel was of the view that the case was far too serious to refer it to mediation. 

162.    The Panel next considered ending the case with taking no action. The Panel had found a risk of repetition of the misconduct, which would involve a risk of harm to the public. The Panel considered that taking no action would allow the Registrant to resume unrestricted practise and the public would therefore not be protected. Further, in light of the seriousness of the Panel’s findings, taking no action would completely fail to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel decided against taking no action. 

163.    The Panel considered imposing a caution order, noting that this could be imposed for 1 year and up to 5 years. The Panel took into account that the Sanctions Policy refers to factors which might indicate a caution order is appropriate. The Panel found however, that the misconduct and impairment issues in this case were neither isolated, limited or relatively minor. The Panel had found that there was a risk of repetition of misconduct. The Registrant had provided no demonstration of insight to the Panel. Although the Registrant had made some concessions as to his conduct in his internal interview with OSR, the Panel considered that this was of limited value, in light of his attempts to suggest his responsibility was mitigated by Colleague A’s alleged behaviour. 

164.    The Panel bore in mind that a caution order would allow the Registrant to resume unrestricted practice. It decided it was insufficient to conclude the case by imposing a caution order, as this would neither protect the public nor serve to maintain public confidence in the profession.

165.    The Panel moved on to consider imposing a conditions of practice order. It noted that the Sanctions Policy states that such an order is likely to be appropriate in cases where “the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s repeated sexually motivated misconduct indicated attitudinal and behavioural issues which conditions of practice were not suited to meet. 

166.    The Panel also noted the guidance in the Sanctions Policy at paragraph 108, which states that conditions are less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, which specifically includes sexual misconduct. 

167.    Paragraph 107 of the Sanctions Policy 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. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent failings.”

168.    In this case, the Registrant has not engaged at all with the hearing and, as a result, the Panel had no confidence that he is committed to any resolution, nor that he would be likely to adhere to any conditions, if imposed. 

169.    Moreover, the Panel was concerned that the case had involved the breach of professional boundaries on multiple occasions by the Registrant. It had also involved the Registrant in a senior position acting in a predatory manner against his junior colleagues. The Panel concluded that the case was too serious for conditions of practice and imposing the same would fail to maintain public confidence in the profession. 

170.    The Panel decided against imposing a conditions of practice order. 

171.    The Panel therefore went on to consider imposing a suspension order. It noted that suspension may be imposed for up to 1 year. The Panel took into account paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:

“121. 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. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors: 

•     the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics; 
•     the registrant has insight; 
•     the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and 
•     there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

172.    The Panel was of the view that there had been a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, in particular Standard 9.1, as above. However, none of the other factors applied: the Registrant had demonstrated no real insight to the Panel; the Panel had found a risk of repetition of misconduct; the Panel had no evidence of an intention to resolve or remedy the Registrant’s failings. 

173.    The Panel next considered a striking off order. It acknowledged that this is a “sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving… sexual misconduct…” [Sanctions Policy paragraph 130].

174.    The Panel took into account paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:

“76. Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. It includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating someone. The misconduct can be directed towards: 

•     service users, carers and family members; 
•     colleagues; and 
•     members of the public. 

77. Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction. Where it deviates from this approach, it should provide clear reasoning.”

175.    The Panel took into account the guidance and the particular misconduct found in this case. In particular, the Panel took into account that how the Registrant had acted towards Colleague A in exposing his penis to her and Colleague B, in pushing his penis against her bottom had been without their consent and sexually motivated. The Registrant’s comments to Colleague B had breached professional boundaries and had also been sexually motivated. The Panel concluded that there was a clear need to take serious action to protect the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards. 

176.    The Panel also noted paragraphs 131 which states:

“131. A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant: 

•     lacks insight; 
•     continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or 
•     is unwilling to resolve matters.”

177.    The Panel considered that, taking into account the Registrant’s lack of demonstrated insight, the multiple findings of sexually motivated misconduct, the risk of the Registrant repeating his misconduct and the lack of any indication of an intention to resolve matters, a striking off order is an appropriate and proportionate sanction and the minimum that could be imposed in this case. 

178.    The Panel acknowledged, as set out in paragraph 132 of the Sanctions Policy, that a striking off order will have a significant impact on a registrant. However, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct and the lack of the Registrant’s demonstration of insight, the Panel concluded that no lesser sanction will be sufficient to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold professional standards. 

179.    The Panel decided to impose a striking off order. 

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Daniel Plant from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1.    The Panel having determined to impose a striking-off order on the Registrant’s registration, Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied for an Interim Order to cover the period within which the Registrant might bring an appeal or until the disposal of any appeal. 

2.    Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied for the Panel to proceed to hear the application, notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Notice of Hearing had contained links giving sufficient notice to the Registrant of the potential for an Interim Order to be applied for and granted. 

3.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been provided with sufficient notice that an interim order may be applied for at the conclusion of the hearing. It decided to hear the application for the interim order in the absence of the Registrant, for similar reasons as to the decision to proceed with the substantive hearing. 

4.    Ms Bernard Stevenson submitted that the Panel had found that the Registrant had engaged in sustained misconduct and had found a risk of repetition. As a result of this, she submitted that an interim order was necessary to protect the public. In addition, the Panel had found that the misconduct had brought the profession into disrepute, and an interim order was otherwise in the public interest, she submitted. 

5.    The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it had power to impose an Interim Order if satisfied it is necessary for public protection, it is otherwise in the public interest, or it is in the Registrant’s own interests. The Panel should impose the least restriction which met its findings and the need for public protection. 

Decision

6.    The Panel took into account its findings of fact had included that there was a risk of repetition of misconduct and a consequent risk to the public. It was satisfied that, during the period for appealing or until the disposal of any appeal made, there is a need for protection of the public. Further, it was also in the interests of maintaining public confidence for there to be an interim order, in light of the risk to the public. Taking into account the Panel’s substantive findings, it was of the view that the least restriction which is appropriate is an Interim Suspension 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; (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 Daniel Plant

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
02/02/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
26/01/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
30/06/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
01/04/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
04/09/2024	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Application	Interim Suspension
16/02/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Adjourned
01/03/2022	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
26/11/2021	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension