James J Hughes

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel has sight of the Notice of Hearing dated 29 January 2026, which had been sent by the HCPC to the Registrant’s registered email address. The email gave details of the hearing, including the date and time.

2. The Panel took into account the Practice Note entitled “Service of Documents” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that there had been proper service of the Notice of hearing in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules 2003 (the Rules). Proceeding in Absence

3. The Registrant was not present and was not represented at this review hearing.

4. Ms Khorassani, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the Panel should proceed with the hearing today. Ms Khorassani referred to multiple attempts by the HCPC to contact the Registrant, by email and telephone, with regard to today’s hearing, but there had been no response. Ms Khorassani also confirmed that she had checked the electronic system this morning to ascertain whether the Registrant had provided any written submissions, but none had been received.

5. Ms Khorassani submitted that there was no evidence that an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance and that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself. Ms Khorassani highlighted that this was a mandatory review hearing, with the Substantive Order expiring on 12 March 2026.

6. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It took into account the submissions made by the HCPC. In considering the application, the Panel was mindful that its discretion to proceed in absence should be exercised with the utmost care and caution.

7. The Panel has seen the electronic communications from Microsoft Outlook dated 29 January 2026 which confirmed delivery of the Notice of today’s hearing to the Registrant’s email address.

8. The Panel considered recent attempts by the HCPC to contact the Registrant in respect of today’s hearing. On 19 January 2026, the HCPC sent an email to the Registrant reminding him of the recommendations which the last reviewing panel had made in respect of how the Registrant may prepare, and the evidence he may wish to provide, for today’s hearing which may assist his case. On 2 February 2026, a further email was sent to the Registrant in a similar vein. On 12 February 2026, the case manager attempted to call the Registrant but there was no answer, and the Panel had before it a telephone attendance file note to that effect. A further email was sent to the Registrant on 19 February 2026 which raised the issue of the lack of evidence provided by the Panel, and gave an indication of the importance of the situation by stating that without evidence of his compliance with the previous panel’s suggestions, the HCPC may consider requesting a Strike Off Order today. On 23 February 2026 , the case manager attempted to call the Registrant’s mobile number and work mobile number but there was no response, and the relevant telephone attendance file note was also before the Panel.

9. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had attended all previous hearings save the last review on 8 May 2025, and therefore was aware of the proceedings and would have the relevant contact details should he wish to contact the HCPC. In the circumstances the Panel decided that it was reasonable to conclude that he had voluntarily waived his right to
attend.

10. The Panel took into account fairness to the Registrant and the potential prejudice to him in proceeding in his absence. While there was potential disadvantage to him the Panel took into account the multiple attempts to contact him as well as the absence of any application for an adjournment. This was a mandatory review of the current Order which is due to expire
on 12 March 2026, and it was in the public interest for the review of the Order to take place.

11. Accordingly, the Panel agreed to the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Hearing partly in private

12. The Panel, of its own volition, raised the issue of whether references to the Registrant’s health, and intimate family circumstances, would be referred to, and whether they should be heard in public.

13. Ms Khorassani did not make any submissions in this regard. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. Having considered the matter, the Panel determined that any reference to the Registrant’s health or intimate family circumstances which might be made would be heard in private in order to protect his private life, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules

Background

15. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic (PA22651) and was employed by Great Sutton Medical Centre (‘the Employer’) as a Band 7 Paramedic, from December 2019 until April 2021.

16. On 06 February 2018, the Registrant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle whilst being over the exceeded prescribed limit of alcohol given at Liverpool Knowsley and St Helens Magistrates’ Court, against section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. As a result, the following penalties against the Registrant were imposed: a fine of £100, a £30 victim surcharge, £85 costs, a collection order and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 18 months.

17. It was also alleged that the Registrant failed to advise the HCPC of the conviction, or make the appropriate declaration of the conviction on 29 June 2020 when completing the HCPC readmission form after his registration had lapsed.

18. In July 2020, concerns were raised by the HCPC’s Registrations Department regarding the Registrant’s conduct that he continued to work as a Paramedic whilst he was not registered with the HCPC, between 07 February 2020 and 24 July 2020.

19. As a result of the HCPC’s investigations into the above matters, the Employer raised concerns that the Registrant had failed to disclose to the Employer that he was not registered with the HCPC, between the relevant times set out above. The Employer subsequently conducted an internal investigation into these matters.

20. In addition to the above, on 29 June 2020, it is alleged that, when completing his readmission form to the HCPC, the Registrant did not tick the box on the form to indicate that he had been disciplined by a regulatory body or his employer.

Substantive Hearing on 11 December 2023

21. The matter eventually came to hearing before the Substantive Hearing Panel on 11 December 2023. The Registrant was unrepresented. Having heard evidence from the HCPC’s witnesses and from the Registrant, the Substantive Hearing Panel made the factual decisions outlined above. Further, it found that the Registrant was impaired in relation to the personal and public components.

22. In relation to Sanction, the Substantive Hearing Panel stated: 

“170. The Panel considered all the information before it. In doing so, the Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• That the Registrant repeated his dishonesty over a period of several
months. This, the Panel concluded, was a particularly aggravating
feature;
• The Registrant’s dishonesty was directed to both his employer and his
regulator and had the potential to impact on his eligibility and suitability
to practise as a paramedic;
• Notwithstanding that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight,
the Panel has recognised that it was limited;
• The Registrant has demonstrated limited steps towards remediating
his failings and keeping his knowledge and skills up to date;
• His initial lack of candour at the case review meeting in February 2021
in which he denied that his name had been removed from the register;
and
• This is the third time that a disciplinary finding has been made against
the Registrant. Whilst the Registrant’s two previous regulatory findings
date from some years back, and were for unrelated matters, the
Registrant should have had a heightened awareness of his duty to
comply with his professional obligations, particularly given that the five
year caution order imposed in July 2013 did not expire until mid-2018.

171. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
• The Registrant has engaged in the regulatory process and made early
admissions to the factual particulars with the exception of the
dishonesty allegations at the outset of the hearing;
• The Registrant has expressed remorse and apologised for his actions;
• The Panel has regard to the principle derived from the case of Sun v
GMC [2023] EWHC 1515 (Admin) as a potential limited mitigating
factor, but recognising the absence of evidence that would be sufficient
to excuse or exonerate the Registrant’s dishonesty;
• The risk of direct patient harm was low;
• The Registrant’s dishonesty in relation to practising as a Paramedic
whilst unregistered, arose from very particular circumstances which
were unlikely to be replicated, and that the Registrant believed that his
registration problems, which arose following a refused direct debit
payment, would be quickly resolved.

172. In the circumstances, and noting that no patient harm resulted from
the Registrant’s dishonesty, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s
dishonest behaviour fell towards the lower, but not at the lowest end of
the dishonesty spectrum.

173. The Panel approached the issue of sanction starting with the least
restrictive first, bearing in mind the need for proportionality and to take
into account the Registrant’s interests. Having done so, it concluded
that taking no further action would not reflect the nature and gravity of
the misconduct. The Panel concluded that taking no action would not
be adequate to protect the public or the wider public interest of
maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory
process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor
proportionate in the circumstances.

174. The Panel next considered mediation, but having had due regard
to the circumstances of this case, such an outcome was inappropriate
to address the issues of dishonesty. It therefore concluded that this was
not an appropriate outcome.

175. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order
and had regard to paragraphs 99-102 of the SP. The Panel concluded
that this was also not an appropriate outcome because:
• For the reasons set out in its determination on misconduct in relation
to dishonesty and impairment, the Panel did not consider the
Registrant’s misconduct to be minor in nature;
• The Registrant’s insight was incomplete;
• The Panel considered that there remained an ongoing risk of repetition
given the lack of effective remediation of his failings.

176. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order
was appropriate. It had regard to paragraphs 105-109 of the SP. It has
concluded that such a sanction would neither be appropriate nor
proportionate to address the nature of the misconduct proved or the
public interest concerns identified. The Panel concluded that workable
and appropriate conditions could not be formulated that would
meaningfully address the dishonesty concerns identified.

177. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that imposing a
Conditions of Practice Order was not the appropriate sanction to
impose.

178. The Panel next considered the sanction of suspension. The Panel
has borne in mind that this would be an appropriate sanction to impose
where, even though the allegation is serious, the conduct was not
fundamentally incompatible with the Registrant remaining on the
register, and hence, a Striking Off Order would not be justified.

179. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order was the
appropriate sanction to impose because:
• The matters found proved, as set out in the Panel’s determination on
misconduct, represented serious breaches of the Standards of Conduct
Performance and Ethics;
• The Registrant has demonstrated some insight into his failings
particularly in relation to Particular 1;
• The Panel was mindful that a striking off order was appropriate for the
most serious cases of dishonesty. It considered that the Registrant's
failings were not so serious that they were fundamentally incompatible
with remaining on the register. In reaching that conclusion, it had regard
to paragraph 121 of the SP which states that a Suspension Order may
be appropriate where “there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant
is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”. The Panel noted,
as set out in the Panel’s determination on impairment, that the
Registrant has developed some insight into his dishonest behaviour
even though that process was not as yet complete.

180. To satisfy itself that a Suspension Order was the appropriate and
proportionate sanction to impose, the Panel considered whether a
Striking-off Order was justified. It had regard to paragraph 130 of the SP
which states that: “A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for
serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts” whilst setting out a nonexhaustive
list of applicable circumstances. The Panel was satisfied,
given the identified mitigating factors, that the facts of this case were
not of such gravity so as to merit such a restrictive sanction. It concluded
that the public protection, and the public interest concerns could be
adequately met by the imposition of a Suspension Order which would
restrict the Registrant’s ability to practise as a Paramedic until such time
as a reviewing panel determined that he was fit to do so.

181. The Panel therefore imposes a Suspension Order for a period of 6
months. The Panel concluded that that was an appropriate and
proportionate period of time to enable the Registrant to reflect on the
nature and gravity of the misconduct found proved and to allow him an
adequate period of time to address and remediate his failings.

182. So far as any future review is concerned, the Panel considered a
future reviewing panel would be assisted by:
• His attendance at any review hearing;
• Further evidence of remediation in relation to addressing his dishonest
behaviour;
• Evidence of reflection on his conduct demonstrating meaningful insight
into the impact of his dishonest behaviour on the wider profession and
the public;
• Up to date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken
by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;
• Evidence that the Registrant had kept his skills and knowledge up to
date;
• Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him
to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted
practice.”

Substantive Review Hearing on 14 June 2024

23. The Suspension Order was subsequently reviewed on 14 June 2024, where it was extended for a further four months. The Registrant was present at the hearing. At that review, the previous review panel (in its private decision) stated the following:

“30. The Panel noted that, whilst the Registrant had submitted a
reflective piece, he had not supplied the Panel with all of the suggested
evidence or material, for instance, any “Up to date references /
testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant,
whether paid or unpaid” or “Evidence that the Registrant had kept his
skills and knowledge up to date”.

31. The Panel was disappointed by this since it considered that the
direction from the last panel had been particularly clear about what proof
regarding his progress needed to be supplied. Although the Registrant
had given evidence about what he had done in the last six months and
before, which had not been challenged by Ms Khorassani assani in
cross examination, he had failed to provide the corroborative evidence
that had been requested.

32. The Panel appreciated the difficulties the Registrant had
experienced over the previous few months and sympathised with him,
but considered that he could have made better efforts to comply with
the previous panel’s directions, not least, for example, by asking those
who gave him voluntary work to supply written testimonials. The lack of
such corroborative evidence therefore made it difficult for the Panel to
conclude that the Registrant had fully remediated his Misconduct.

33. The Panel was appreciative of the Registrant’s oral evidence and
considered that he gave good answers regarding, for instance, the
effect of his dishonesty upon members of the public. To that extent, the
Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has made progress regarding
his insight, which it considers has improved since the last hearing.
However, the Panel considered that he had not attained full insight.

34. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the Registrant had not given
sufficient thought to how he would facilitate any return to practice, given
that he had not worked as a paramedic for some three years and was
currently not registered with the HCPC. In particular, the Panel
considered that the Registrant had not demonstrated that he had
sufficiently kept his skills as a paramedic up to date. The Panel noted
his evidence that he had had a long career as a paramedic and had had
no complaints about his clinical skills, but his training to date did not
encompass specific paramedic learning, which was concerning to the
Panel given his absence from the profession for so long. Moreover, the
Registrant, although he had confirmed taking the mandatory courses
specified and completed online reading and research, had not given any
evidence about what he had learned from these.

35. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that, although the Registrant has
made good progress towards remediating his failings, further work and
evidence was needed.

36. The Panel first considered that the Registrant remained impaired
with regard to the personal component. It was of the view that the
conduct was remediable, but as it had not yet been fully remedied (for
the reasons outlined above) it was likely to be repeated. The Panel
therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained
impaired on personal grounds.

37. Further, the Panel determined that a finding of impairment was also
necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and
uphold standards. A reasonable and informed member of the public
would expect such a finding on the basis that the Registrant remained
impaired on public grounds.

Decision on Sanction

38. The Panel considered the Sanctions Policy of the HCPTS and
accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that a sanction should be the
least that is necessary to ensure public protection. The Panel reminded
itself that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant and
that a sanction must be reasonable and proportionate.

39. The Panel determined that the nature of the concerns in this case
were too serious to make no Order.

40. The Panel considered whether to impose a Caution Order but
decided that it was inappropriate because a Caution Order would not
provide sufficient public protection.

41. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order was not
appropriate because the Registrant had not shown sufficient insight and
such an order was not appropriate to address the current outstanding
issues.

42. The Panel then considered an extension of the current Suspension
Order. It considered that the Registrant, having made some progress
with his remediation, required only a relatively short period of further
suspension to provide the next reviewing panel with the evidence
requested and the further reflections needed. The Panel therefore
concluded that an extension of the current suspension order would be
appropriate and proportionate.

43. The Panel considered that a further extension to the current order
of four months would be sufficient to enable the Registrant to reflect
further and assemble the documentary evidence required to
demonstrate that he had fully remediated his failings and would not
repeat them.

44. On that basis, the Panel concluded that, given that the Registrant
had made progress since the last hearing and had the capacity to
respond positively to a further suspension in order to allow him to fully
remediate his practice, an Order Striking Off the Registrant would be
entirely disproportionate.

45. The Panel determined that the current Suspension Order be
extended by a period of four months so as to expire on 12 November
2024.

46. Towards the end of that period there will be a further review hearing.
The Panel considered a future reviewing panel would be assisted by:
• The Registrant’s attendance at any review hearing;
• Further evidence of remediation in relation to addressing (i) how he
would ensure that he would prevent any repetition of his failings in the
future by utilising support; and (ii) how he would manage a return to
practice, given that his absence from working as a paramedic for three
years had diminished his skills as such;
• Up to date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken
by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;
• Evidence that the Registrant had kept his skills and knowledge up to
date, together with an analysis of what he has learned from all CPD
activities;
• Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to
demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.’”
Substantive Review Hearing on 15 October 2024

24. The Suspension Order was again reviewed on 15 October 2024, where it was extended for a further six months. The Registrant was present at the hearing. At that review, the review panel (in its private decision) stated the following:

“28. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct in this case
related to a finding that he had been convicted of driving with excess
alcohol and a failure to honestly and appropriately disclose this
information to the HCPC on more than one occasion.

29. The Panel noted the previous reviewing panel’s private decision
(June 2024), which it was not bound by, and as set out above.
…

30. In particular the Panel noted that the Registrant had not provided
the previous reviewing panel with any evidence of testimonials or work
undertaken. Nor had he provided evidence that he had kept his skills
and knowledge up to date.

31. The Panel also noted that the previous reviewing panel’s
determination (at paragraph 46) was very clear regarding what might
assist the Panel when reviewing the Order today (as set out above).
The Panel noted that the Registrant had again not provided any
evidence to it for the purposes of today’s review hearing.

32. The Panel noted and commended the Registrant for his attendance
and engagement at today’s review hearing. However, the Panel was
also disappointed the Registrant had, notwithstanding clear guidance
from the earlier reviewing panel, not furnished any documentation to it
for the purposes of today’s review hearing.

33. Having had regard to the Registrant’s oral evidence to it, the Panel
was troubled by the Registrant’s lack of insight in respect of the impact
on his actions and how they have affected the Paramedic profession
and the wider public. Noting that the Registrant chose to focus primarily
upon how the finding and regulatory proceedings had impacted him.
The Panel did recognise that the Registrant had taken some steps
towards demonstrating some insight, but the Panel considered this to
be limited at the current time.

34. The Panel also noted that whilst the Registrant had stated in his oral
evidence that he had undertaken some independent reading and
research, the Panel noted that, again, the Registrant had not provided
any documentary evidence to confirm the same. Whilst the Panel
acknowledged the Registrant’s private and personal circumstances and
his inability to pay for CPD courses or learning, the Panel noted that the
Registrant had also not produced a written list of the reading that he had
undertaken to place before the Panel as evidence of the same.

35. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s oral evidence did not address
to the Panel’s satisfaction, the Registrant’s understanding of the impact
of his actions and dishonesty on the public or the profession. Further,
the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s oral evidence did not
outline how he would prevent such conduct from being repeated in the
future

36. The Panel next had regard to the lack of testimonials provided by
the Registrant. The Panel noted that the previous reviewing panel had
requested testimonials be provided to account for and attest to the
Registrant’s voluntary work. Again, whilst the Panel had sympathy for
the Registrant’s personal circumstances and ongoing health, the Panel
considered that the Registrant’s response that he “didn’t like asking
people for things” lacked insight.

37. In the Panel’s view, as an individual wishing to return to Paramedic
practice and considering that he bears the persuasive burden, the
Registrant had not taken any positive steps to provide the required
evidence that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired and that he
was safe to return to Paramedic practice. Further, the Panel also
considered that the Registrant demonstrated an attitude whereby he
was of the view that oral evidence and/or submissions to a panel,
without the requested documentary evidence to attest to his fitness to
return to practise being provided, was sufficient, despite very clear
indications from two previous panels to the contrary.

38. Given the aforementioned, the Panel considered that it could not yet
be confident that the Registrant had demonstrated the required insight
or that he has taken steps to remediate his failings and therefore it could
also not be confident that his behaviour would not be repeated.

39. Consequently, the Panel was not satisfied that in all the
circumstances the Registrant does not still pose a real and on-going risk
to the public and that public confidence in the profession would not be
undermined should the Registrant be permitted to return to unrestricted
practice.

40. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to
practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components.
The Panel considered whether an order was necessary in the
Registrant’s own interests, in view of his oral evidence to it however, the
Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence before it, at the
current time, to conclude that it was.

41. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own
independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to
punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, that any sanction
must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive
order that would protect the public interest, including public protection.

42. The Panel considered the option of a Caution Order however, it
decided that it would not provide adequate protection for the public in
view of its findings.

43. The Panel next considered the option of a Conditions of Practice
Order. However, the Panel decided that conditions would not be
workable, or appropriate, at the current time. In forming this view, the
Panel noted that the Registrant had not indicated to it that he would be
willing to comply with a Conditions of Practice Order, he had failed to
demonstrate sufficient insight into his failings and it also had regard to
the fact that he is not currently working. Additionally, the Panel also
noted that in respect of a finding of dishonesty, that it was difficult to
craft Conditions of Practice Order for something which the Panel
considered could be attitudinal in nature. For all of these reasons, the
Panel determined that a conditions of practice order was not appropriate
or workable.

44. The Panel next carefully considered extending the current
Suspension Order versus imposing a Striking-off Order. The Panel
noted the Registrant’s engagement and the difficulties that he had
continued to endure, since the last review hearing. The Panel also noted
that the Registrant had taken some steps to reflect on his behaviour and
whilst it considered his insight, remorse and remediation to be limited,
the Panel noted that the Registrant’s insight did appear to be
developing.

45. The Panel also considered that a Striking-off Order would be
disproportionate at the current time. In forming this view, the Panel took
account of the Registrant’s oral evidence to it, that he wished to return
to Paramedic practice, and it also had regard to the fact that the
Registrant could go on to make a valuable contribution to the Paramedic
profession. Having done so, the Panel determined that, in the current
circumstances, notwithstanding the serious findings made against the
Registrant, the Registrant should be afforded with a further opportunity
to satisfy a future panel that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired.
However, the Panel was also of the view that should the Registrant
attend a future review hearing without any documentary evidence to
support his oral evidence and/ or submissions, then a future reviewing
panel may well consider that a Striking-off Order is the only remaining
appropriate option available to it. In forming this view, the Panel noted
the repeated requests made to the Registrant, by both the Substantive
Hearing panel and the previous reviewing panels, to provide
documentary evidence and noted his repeated failure to do so.

46. However, notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Panel
determined that the appropriate and proportionate Order, at the
current time, is to extend the current Suspension Order. The Panel
determined that this should be for a period of six months to allow the
Registrant time to reflect further, to demonstrate insight into his
misconduct and to take steps to demonstrate and evidence that his
fitness to practice is no longer impaired.

47. The Panel considered that a review panel may be assisted by the
following:
a) The Registrant’s attendance at a future review hearing;
b) evidence of remediation in relation to addressing:
(i) how he would ensure that he would prevent any repetition
of his failings in the future by utilising support; and
(ii) how he would manage a return to practice, given that his
absence from working as a paramedic for three years had
diminished his skills as such;
c) Up to date references / testimonials in relation to any work
undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;
d) Evidence that the Registrant had kept his skills and knowledge up
to date, together with an analysis of what he has learned from all
CPD activities;
e) Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to
demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.”

Substantive Review Hearing on 8 May 2025

25. The Registrant did not attend this review hearing. The reviewing Panel
stated as follows:

“31.The Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct in this case
related to a finding that he had been convicted of driving with excess
alcohol and a failure to honestly and appropriately disclose this
information to the HCPC on more than one occasion. The Registrant
had not provided the previous panel with any evidence of testimonials,
work undertaken, or evidence that he had kept his skills and
knowledge up to date. This information was also not before this Panel
despite the previous panel’s written determination clearly setting out
what this Panel would be assisted by today. The Registrant had failed
to attend or engage.

32. The Panel concluded that that there remained a lack of insight in
respect of the impact of the Registrant’s actions and how they have
affected the Paramedic profession and the wider public. Any steps
taken to demonstrate insight at the previous hearing was found to fall
short by the previous panel, such as not providing documentary
evidence in support of the claimed reading and research, or a list of
the reading undertaken. This had not changed at today’s hearing.

33. The Panel noted there had been nothing further provided since
to persuade it that the insight had developed any further, so the same
concerns on insight remain at the current time. The Panel were not
satisfied that being “shy” was an acceptable reason in not being able
to provide supporting insight from people he volunteered with in order
to provide the Panel with evidence of the missing insight. The Panel
had concerns on the Registrant’s inability to evidence the work he
claimed to have undertaken, because this was limited to what he had
informed the previous panels, and there was no evidence to verify
the claims.

34. The Registrant had still not demonstrated an understanding of
the impact of his actions and dishonesty on the public or the
profession, or demonstrated how such conduct would not be
repeated in the future. He had failed to discharge the persuasive
burden on him of steps taken to demonstrate that he was no longer
impaired and that he was safe to return to Paramedic practice.

35. The Panel find there is insufficient insight, insufficient evidence
of steps taken to remediate the failings and the Panel had concerns
on the risk of repetition.

36. In the circumstances, the Registrant still presented a risk to the
public and public confidence in the profession, and the regulatory
process, would be undermined should the Registrant be permitted to
return to unrestricted practice. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that
the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the
personal and public components.
……..

41.The previous panel had found the Registrant had taken some steps to reflect on his behaviour and his insight did appear to be developing. He had attended both the substantive hearing and two further review hearings.

42.The Panel considered that a Striking-off Order would be disproportionate at the current time. It would deprive the Registrant an opportunity to engage. Whilst this hearing went ahead in his absence, it would be disproportionate, given his prior engagement, to impose a Striking-off Order. He had previously attended and expressed his desire to return to Paramedic practice and the previous panel had considered that the Registrant could go on to make a valuable contribution to the Paramedic profession.

43.Therefore, the Panel determine that the Registrant should be afforded a further opportunity to satisfy a future panel that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. If at the future hearing the Registrant had still not engaged, or provided sufficient evidence a future reviewing panel may well consider that a Striking-off Order is the only remaining appropriate option available to it.

44.The Panel determined that the appropriate and proportionate Order, at the current time, is to extend the current Suspension Order. The Panel determined that this should be for a period of 10 months to allow the Registrant time to reflect further, to demonstrate insight into his misconduct and to take steps to demonstrate and evidence that his fitness to practice is no longer impaired. If there is anything that prevents him being able to engage, including any health related issues, then the Registrant is to keep the HCPC updated.”

Submissions

26. Ms Khorassani took the Panel through a background of the case which included the Registrant’s lack of engagement for a significant period of time with the regulatory proceedings. Ms Khorassani referred to the misconduct which was a breach of professional standards and in light of the lack of any evidence from the Registrant including an absence of information which the previous reviewing Panel had specifically stated may assist this Panel, today Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, and referred to both the personal and public components of impairment.

27. In light of the Registrant’s ongoing lack of engagement, Ms Khorassani submitted that the Panel should consider imposing a Striking Off Order in order to avoid circling around to reviews of consecutive Suspension Orders.

28. There were no submissions from the Registrant before the Panel.

Decision

29. The Panel had before it the service bundle, the HCPC bundle, and an Addendum bundle.

30. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, and the HCPC’s submissions.

31. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Only if Impairment remained, would the panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any to impose. The Panel bore in mind the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) which set out the persuasive burden on the Registrant in respect of this hearing.

32. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired.

33. The misconduct found by the substantive hearing Panel was serious. It involved matters of dishonesty in respect of practising as a Paramedic while he was not registered with the HCPC, not informing his employer that he had been removed from the HCPC register, and not informing the HCPC that he had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol in 6 February 2018.

34. The dishonesty in this case involved the Registrant flouting his obligation to his regulator in complying with requirements to maintain registration as a precondition to practising, and also his obligation to declare a conviction. In such circumstances, the HCPC was prevented from exercising its duties and responsibilities as a regulator. It was prevented from knowing about the conviction, and therefore was unable to make a risk assessment about the Registrant, which is a process designed to protect the public, including service users who would come into contact with the Registrant. This lack of the HCPC’s ability to carry out a risk assessment also undermined the wider public interest in the maintenance of proper standards and the upholding of confidence in the profession.

35. In addition, the Registrant’s dishonest continuation of working while not registered with the HCPC, and dishonestly not telling his employer that he was not registered also gave rise to public protection and public interest concerns. Registration as a precondition to being able to practise brings with it safeguards which protect the public as well as public confidence. In addition, the employer was prevented from having important information which would allow it to act to ensure that the Registrant did not work while unregistered.

36. Dishonesty is an attitudinal and behavioural issue. It has the capacity to impact on decision-making in general, and this can extend to how service users are cared for, and how the public generally, including colleagues, are interacted with by the Registrant in the course of his practice. The Panel considered that the lack of any information or evidence from the Registrant meant that it could not be satisfied that he had taken steps to achieve a sufficient level of insight, reflection and remediation of the misconduct. He had not attended today, and not attempted to comply with the recommendations of the previous reviewing panel as to the kind of information which may assist today’s Panel, and indeed assist him, at today’s hearing. He had also not attended the previous review hearing.

37. The Panel also took into account that there was no evidence before it that the Registrant had kept his skills and knowledge up to date, or whether he had undertaken any CPD activities. In light of the passage of time since he had worked as a Paramedic, the Panel considered that this would have been important evidence to address whether the Registrant had maintained his level of clinical competence and knowledge to a degree which is sufficient not to raise concerns about his ability to practise without restriction.

38. As an attitudinal issue, dishonesty can be difficult to remediate. It needs to be addressed head on by way of reflection, insight and understanding. In light of the seriousness of the dishonesty in this case, and the lack of any evidence before it today that the Registrant had sufficient insight and understanding of why he was dishonest, and how to prevent dishonesty recurring in the future, the Panel considered that there was a real risk of repetition.

39. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

40. In light of the seriousness of the dishonesty, the fact that it has not been sufficiently addressed by the Registrant, and that it struck at the heart of the Registrant’s obligations to the HCPC, as a registered professional, to whom he has duties as his regulator, and which has, as main objective, the protection of the public and the public interest, the Panel concluded that a finding of impairment was required in the public interest, in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulator, and to maintain proper standards of conduct.

Decision on Sanction

41. The Panel next went on to consider sanction, and took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (SP). The Panel bore in mind that what sanction, if any, to impose, was a matter for its own independent judgment, and that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order made was the least restrictive order necessary to protect the public interest, including public protection.

42. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, which has not been remedied, and the ongoing risk to public protection, it would be inappropriate to take no action. It would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be inappropriate and
insufficient to protect the public and meet the public interest for the same reasons.

43. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. However, on the basis of the Registrant’s lack of engagement today, there was no indication that he would be willing to comply with conditions. In any event, the Panel decided that due to dishonesty being a matter of attitude, conditions could not be formulated which would be workable or sufficient to address an attitudinal issue, and therefore to protect the public, and the wider
public interest.

44. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. While a previous Panel had decided that the Registrant’s insight had been developing, there was no evidence of further development of that insight since, nor has he attended since the review on 14 June 2024. There is a real risk of repetition of dishonesty in this case. In addition, the Registrant has been given guidance and direction by previous panels as to the kind of evidence he should provide
to enable him to demonstrate the required level of insight and remediation. He has not done so, despite such repeated guidance, during the period over which he has been suspended. He has previously expressed his passion for his profession, but has not engaged with the hearing process sufficiently to assure panels that he has achieved sufficient insight and remediation, and that he takes the regulatory process seriously. There has been no evidence put forward by the Registrant to explain this lack of engagement today, such as matters relating to health or significant life events.

45. As such, the Panel was unable to conclude that the Registrant was unwilling to resolve or remedy his failings. The underlying issues of a lack of engagement with the regulatory process at the previous review hearing, and also today, and the ongoing risk of repetition of dishonesty, led the Panel to conclude thatSuspension would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public or uphold the wider public interest.

46. In summary, the dishonesty found proved was serious, and gave rise to a real risk to the public, including service users and colleagues. There was a lack of evidence of insight into, or remediation of, the Registrant’s misconduct, before the Panel today. This is to be seen within the context of the continuing lack of any engagement today and at the previous review hearing, The Registrant was, in the Panel’s view, taking into account all the
circumstances, unwilling to resolve the concerns. All of these factors led the Panel to decide that a Striking Off Order was the only way in which the public could be protected, and which could uphold the wider public interest.

47. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the guidance with particular reference to paragraphs 121, 130 and 131, the latter being met in its full regard. The Panel took into account the principle of proportionality, and the impact that such a sanction will have on the Registrant’s right to practise his profession, as well as the likely reputational and financial impact. However, the Panel decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard.

48. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order which will come into effect on the expiry of the current Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr James Hughes from the Register from 12 March 2026.

The Order imposed today will apply from 12 March 2026. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 12 March 2031.

History of Hearings for James J Hughes