​​Beth Woolridge​

Preliminary Matters
Proceeding in private.
1. Prior to the Registrant giving evidence, the representative for the HCPC agreed to make an application for any part of the evidence relating to the Registrant’s health or family life to be heard in private. The Registrant agreed to this application.
2. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice. It was mindful of the principle of open justice, and mindful of the fact that the Registrant was unrepresented. It determined to hear any discrete part of her evidence that related to either her health matters or family life in private. This was in order to protect the Registrant’s privacy and in accordance with Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure Rules) Order of Council 2023.

Background.
3. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.
4. On 15 April 2025, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC. In the self-referral, the Registrant wrote ‘On 29/03/2024 I was tried to prevent a highly intoxicated friend from driving their own vehicle. I didn’t believe my ability to drive was impaired after consuming 4/5 drinks over the course of the evening and agreed to move the car 50m round the corner out of a restricted parking zone, the police pulled over the vehicle and I was arrested and charged ‘Contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I was released on unconditional bail and appeared before Leicester Magistrates Court on 12/04/2024 and was found guilty. I have been banned from driving for 17 months and fined. I was offered by the court to undertake a drink driving course that I have now applied for.’ (sic)
5. The HCPC made further enquiries and obtained a certificate of conviction.
6. On 19 February 2025, a panel of the Investigating Committee found that the Registrant had a case to answer. The matter was therefore listed for this substantive hearing.

Decision on Facts.
7. The Registrant admitted the Allegation and confirmed that she had been convicted of the matter as set out at Particular 1 of the Allegation. It was clarified that this was the only matter that was admitted.
8. The Panel accepted legal advice and had regard to the HCPTS practice note ‘Admissions’ dated October 2024. It determined that the Registrant fully understood the nature of the conviction and that she was admitting this element of the Allegation only. It noted the Registrant’s self-referral, the admissions made within that, and the documentation provided. It noted that the Registrant had disclosed and never disputed the fact of the conviction to the HCPC.
9. It was the decision of the Panel to accept the Registrant’s admission as to the conviction, and the fact of the conviction was therefore found proved.

Decision on Grounds.
10. The Ground relied upon by the HCPC was purely the conviction, in accordance with Article 22 (1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001.
11. It was accepted by the Panel that this can constitute a ground for a registrant’s fitness to practice being currently impaired, depending on the next stage of the proceedings. The Panel therefore moved on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired.

Decision on Impairment.
The HCPC’s case.
12. Submissions were made on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired. It was submitted that the following standards set out in the HCPC’s 2016 standards of Conduct and Performance were engaged in relation to allegations: 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
13. Further, it was submitted that there had also been a breach of the following standards as set out within the HCPC’s 2023 Proficiency Standards for Paramedics:
2.1 Maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.
2.4 Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council, including, but not limited to, standards of conduct, performance and ethics.
14. It was the view of the HCPC that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate sufficient remediation. The Registrant’s remorse was acknowledged, but it was submitted that there was no evidence of remediation to demonstrate that the risk of repetition had been reduced. The representative submitted that the CPD demonstrated by the Registrant was generic, and not related to the specific facts of the case. It was submitted that the Registrant had not produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she could now practise safely and effectively.
15. Further, it was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the public component of fitness to practice was engaged due to the seriousness of the offending behaviour.

The Registrant’s Case.
16. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation.
17. The Registrant demonstrated clear remorse for the conduct that led to the conviction. She explained that she deeply regretted her actions, and no longer drinks alcohol at all. The Registrant also explained that although she has her driving license back following her ban, she does not currently drive. Further, she has done what she thought was possible to mitigate the impact of what she had done.
18. It was explained by the Registrant that her conviction had been reported in the press, and there were multiple comments by members of the public about this. She stated that Paramedics are in a position of trust, and that she has let the public down. The Registrant stated that she abhors drink driving and was horrified that her poor decision making when under the influence of alcohol had put her into this category. This was one of the reasons she had elected to give up alcohol.
19. It was confirmed by the Registrant that she had paid the fine immediately and that her driving ban was at an end. She confirmed that her long-term aim would be to return to work on the frontline as a Paramedic.
20. MG is the Registrant’s current manager and was aware of the hearing. She attended to support the Registrant and explain the Registrant’s current role, as a Health and Wellbeing advisor at a further education college. She described the Registrant’s character in this role as reliable and competent. MG confirmed the Registrant had been an asset to the team due to her first aid knowledge, and had developed a strong rapport with her colleagues. It was clarified that driving was not required for the role, and the Registrant did not need to be registered with the HCPC to undertake it.

Legal Advice.
21. The Panel heard advice from the Legal Assessor. It was directed to the HCPTS practice note ‘Fitness to Practice impairment’ dated August 2025 and referred to relevant case law, including the test as set out in CHRE V NMC (and Grant) (2011) EWHC 97 (Admin). The Panel was reminded of its role and that it should consider current fitness to practice using its own professional judgement, there being no burden or standard of proof.

Panel Decision.
22. The Panel’s role is to protect the public, ensure public confidence is maintained and uphold proper professional standards. It must assess whether the Registrant poses a current risk. However, it was mindful that its role was not to punish the Registrant for past deeds. It was the view of the Panel that a single historical drink driving conviction would not necessarily be a barrier to registration for an individual applying to be admitted to the HCPC register for the first time.
23. The Panel considered the letter submitted by the Registrant for the court proceedings dated 11 April 2024, and also the reflective response which the HCPC recorded as having been received on 15 January 2025. It noted that the Registrant had promptly self-referred to the HCPC after her conviction. The Panel found that it was clear from the certificate of conviction that the Registrant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity in court.
24. It was the view of the Panel that the Registrant had taken responsibility for her conviction and the actions that led to it. She had demonstrated significant remorse and had remediated in the best way that she was able to by giving up alcohol.
25. The Panel noted that the Registrant had already suffered significant consequences as a result of her conviction. She had lost her front-line Paramedic role, received a long driving ban, experienced public exposure and suffered reputational damage. The Panel found that the Registrant’s evidence about giving up alcohol and no longer driving was credible. It also found her comments about being a role model and in a position of trust to be insightful, and that she recognised the long-term effects of what she had done on both herself and the public perception of her profession.
26. It was also noted by the Panel that the Registrant had made significant efforts to keep her CPD up to date. She had obtained over 30 CPD certificates from various times in the last few years, which clearly demonstrated a commitment to her profession and a desire to maintain her skills as far as possible. Therefore, with regards to the personal component, it was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant’s efforts at remediation and the lessons learnt were sufficient, and that the risk of repetition was very low indeed. It found that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was not impaired on the personal component.
27. The Panel then moved on to consider whether the public component was engaged. The Panel was mindful that the public component operates independently from the personal component. Even when the risk of repetition was low, the wider public interest may still require a finding of impairment. It noted that the offence for which the Registrant was convicted is a summary only, low level offence which can only be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court. Nevertheless, the Panel took the view that a Paramedic committing this offence was a serious matter. Although no actual harm was caused, the risk of serious harm to the public from any individual driving after having consumed excess alcohol is great. Paramedics are expected to understand road safety fully and will often be expected to provide an emergency response as part of their role.
28. It was the view of the Panel that as a result of her conviction, the Registrant had already been significantly punished, and it fully acknowledged that this conduct was unlikely to be repeated. However, it took the view that an ordinary person, aware of all the facts of the case, would expect the Regulator to act in order to uphold proper standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. It took the view that the conviction was sufficiently serious that the public component was engaged and therefore made a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired on this component only.

Decision on Sanction
HCPC Submissions
29. The representative for the HCPC confirmed that the current HCPC policy is to outline the sanctions available, rather than to request a specific sanction. It was submitted that the primary purpose of any sanction is to protect the public, and the least restrictive option should always be considered first. The Panel were reminded that only the minimum action required to protect the public should be taken.
30. The HCPC identified the following mitigating factors:
• Insight.
• Remorse.
• Personal remediation undertaken by the Registrant.
31. The following features were deemed to be aggravating by the HCPC:
• The potential for harm to service users.
• The seriousness of the proved allegation.

Registrant’s submissions.
32. The Registrant indicated that she had read through the HCPC Sanctions Policy and understood the necessity to protect the public interest, so was expecting a suspension to be imposed. She indicated that she had gone above and beyond to try to show remorse and had taken measures to ensure that there was no potential for such an incident to ever happen again.

Panel Decision.
33. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice and had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy.
34. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• Insight.
• Remorse.
• Personal remediation.
• No previous regulatory concerns.
• Immediate self-referral and high level of cooperation in providing information about the details of the conviction to the HCPC.
• Isolated incident.

35. It was also identified by the Panel that there were some aggravating factors. These were:
• The risk of harm to the public.
• The seriousness of the proven allegation.36. In accordance with the Sanctions Policy, the Panel first considered the lowest form of sanction. It found that mediation was not appropriate. It also determined that taking no action would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in both the Regulator and the profession.
37. The Panel next considered a caution order. It noted that the conviction arose from a single isolated incident, and that the Registrant had provided evidence of remorse, reflection and remediation. It was mindful that its role was not to punish, and that the Registrant had already suffered significant personal and professional consequences. The Panel also noted that there was no evidence of actual harm having been caused, although it acknowledged a real risk of significant harm. It was the view of the Panel that the conviction could not be treated as relatively minor in regulatory, as opposed to criminal law guidance, but it was an isolated incident.
38. The Panel had already concluded that the Registrant had tried to do as much as possible to remediate and keep her skills up to date. It accepted that her desire to abstain from alcohol as a result of this conviction was genuine. It determined that an ordinary person, aware of all the circumstances of the case, would not expect the Registrant to be punished again by the Regulator given the Panel’s finding that the risk of repetition was low.
39. A caution order would show on the register and the Panel determined that this would constitute a significant mark against the Registrant’s name, which she would have to explain whenever she applies for a job. The Panel considered that, in all the circumstances, a caution order would adequately protect the public interest and maintain public confidence in both the profession and the Regulator.
40. In accordance with the Sanctions Policy, the Panel also considered the next sanction up, which is a conditions of practice order. It noted that this was not a case about clinical competence, but about the Registrant’s personal conduct and judgement. As such, the Panel found that there were no workable conditions that could be imposed to mitigate any future risks. This meant that the next sanction available was a suspension order.
41. The Panel considered that a suspension order would be disproportionate. This was an isolated incident which led to a single conviction, and there was no pattern of offending. The Panel had found there was a very low risk of repetition and considered that suspending the Registrant would risk straying into the realms of punishment.
42. Therefore, the Panel determined that a caution order was the least restrictive option available to it and that this was a proportionate sanction. It also considered proportionality in relation to the length of this sanction and concluded that 2 years was appropriate. This was adequate to reflect public perception of the seriousness of the offence and demonstrate that the regulatory concern had been acted upon. It was sufficient to signal to both the public and other registrants that the Registrant’s conduct had been unacceptable and had brought the profession into disrepute. It was the view of the Panel that, as it had found such a low risk of repetition, any longer would be disproportionate given its finding as to the level of insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant. The Panel therefore imposed a Caution Order of 2 years’ duration.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Beth Woolridge with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 2 years from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for ​​Beth Woolridge​