Benjamin Southam

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 21 May 2026, setting out the time, date and venue for this hearing.
2. The Panel was provided with a delivery receipt for the email.
3. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address and was therefore satisfied with service in this case.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant
4. The Registrant did not attend the hearing. Miss Davison, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and outlined the relevant considerations from the cases of R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim. 168 and R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and the guidance contained within the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.
5. Miss Davison provided a brief chronology of the HCPC’s efforts to contact the Registrant during the course of the proceedings, confirming dates when emails had been sent to his registered email address resulting in no response from him. She confirmed that the only time the HCPC had managed to speak to the Registrant was on the telephone on 13 July 2026 when he confirmed that he had received the Notice of Hearing and that he did not wish to attend or provide any submissions. The HCPC therefore submitted that he had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings. She confirmed that the Registrant had not requested an adjournment and there was no evidence or suggestion that he would attend a future hearing if the matter was adjourned.
6. Miss Davison submitted that whilst there is a general principle that a registrant has the right to be present and to make representations, the Panel has discretion to proceed in his absence when all reasonable steps have been taken to notify him of the proceedings and it is fair to proceed in his absence.
7. The Legal Assessor confirmed to the Panel that the cases of Hayward and Jones concerned criminal proceedings and, in those cases, where a criminal defendant failed to appear, the proceedings can be adjourned so that the defendant can be arrested and brought before the Court. The Panel was advised that this remedy is not available in regulatory proceedings, therefore the Court in the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 confirmed that “unless there is clear evidence that the registrant would be willing to attend a future hearing, (his failure to attend at the present hearing) is unlikely to be a compelling reason to adjourn.”
8. The Panel were also reminded that, in the case of Adeogba, the Court confirmed that “there is a burden on...all professionals subject to a regulatory regime, to engage with the regulator, both in relation to the investigation and ultimate resolution of allegations made against them. That is part of the responsibility to which they sign up when being admitted to the profession.”
9. The Panel was advised that, although it had discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, this discretion should be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
10. The Panel took into account the submissions made by Miss Davison and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted the general principle that the Registrant had the right to be present and make representations but agreed that it was evident from the information provided, in particular the telephone call with him on 13 July 2023, that he had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. The Panel considered that the Registrant was aware of the significance and serious nature of the proceedings, particularly in light of the parallel proceedings in the criminal court.
11. In the circumstances, the Panel determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence. Whilst the Panel recognised that the Registrant was likely to be disadvantaged by not participating in the hearing, they agreed that he had been given the opportunity to attend and participate, but had decided not to do so.

Partial Privacy Application
12. Miss Davison submitted that, had the Registrant been present, he would have potentially applied to the Panel to consider that part of the hearing should be held in private, in relation to any reference to his private life. Miss Davison confirmed that the HCPC would not have objected such an application and therefore, in fairness to the absent Registrant, she outlined such an application for the Panel to consider.
13. Miss Davison submitted that there may be occasions in the course of the hearing where matters relating to the Registrant’s private life, in particular his health, had to be raised in order to provide context and promote a fair hearing for the Registrant. On behalf of the HCPC, she invited the Panel to conduct those parts of the hearing in private in order to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life.
14. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be held in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, there are two broad circumstances in which all or part of a hearing may be held in private, these are where it is in the interests of justice to do so, or where it is done in order to protect the private life of an individual.
15. The Panel considered the application and the advice provided, in particular the principle of open justice. It considered that, whilst the Registrant was not present, it was fair to allow his private health and personal family matters to be considered in private in order to facilitate a full hearing with necessary context.
16. The Panel therefore determined that the proceedings should be held partially in private, in order to maintain the Registrant’s right to a private life and that any matters relating to his health and private life should be heard in private.

Background
17. Miss Davison outlined the background to the Allegation for the Panel.
18. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.
19. On 19 June 2025 the Registrant was convicted of the offence of voyeurism contrary to section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
20. The brief circumstances of this offence are that Person A took her son to a swimming lesson and when changing in the family area, in a cubicle, she saw the back of an iPhone with the camera facing up being held at the bottom of the dividing cubicle wall. Upon sight she covered herself up, then saw the phone again, being held the other way up and a red button and timer indicating that it was in recording mode was displayed. Person A noticed an adult male hand holding it.
21. The Judge, when sentencing the Registrant at the Crown Court, described Person A as rightly outraged, having had her privacy violated by what had taken place and that she ran out of the cubicle, banging on the door, shouting “Stop”. The Registrant apologised, saying his baby had been holding the phone which the Judge stated was clearly a lie. That lie was said to have been repeated when the Registrant later phoned the leisure centre stating that his son had been in control of the phone and that this was a misunderstanding.
22. Person A was outraged and had some flashbacks regarding the incident.
23. When the police attended the Registrant’s home address an iPhone was seized. In interview the Registrant admitted holding the phone for some 10 to 20 seconds, taking a recording which he later deleted. No saved recordings were found on the device seized.
24. The Registrant was sentenced to a Community Order for a period of 18 months with 100 hours unpaid work and a 14 day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. He was also made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 5 years and will appear of the Sex Offenders’ register for 5 years, with the associated registration requirements. His mobile phone was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay £500 in compensation to Person A.

Decision on facts
25. Miss Davison confirmed that the HCPC does not propose to call any witnesses in this case. She submitted that the Allegation relates to a conviction and referred the Panel to the evidence, in particular the Certificate of Conviction dated 19 June 2025 from Ipswich Crown Court confirming the Registrant was convicted on an offence of voyeurism.
26. Miss Davison referred to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Conviction and Caution Allegations which, at paragraph 12, confirms the Panel rules as follows:
“where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.”
27. The Panel were reminded that the burden of proof is on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
28. In relation to the conviction alleged, the Panel accepted the Certificate of Conviction as proof of the matter. The Panel also noted the Registrant had admitted the offence of voyeurism and pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings. The Panel therefore determined that Particular 1 was proved on a balance of probabilities.

Decision on Grounds
29. Miss Davison submitted that one of the statutory grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is under Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence.
30. The Panel determined that the statutory ground of conviction was made out as a result of the factual finding of the conviction recorded against the Registrant as alleged by Particular 1, together with the Judge’s sentencing remarks at the Crown Court.

Decision on Impairment
31. Miss Davison invited the Panel to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components.
32. In her submissions she confirmed that no separate evidence would be called by the HCPC and that impairment was a judgement for the Panel. She referred to the documents provided to the Panel, which included the redacted Final Hearing bundle of 58 pages and the Case Summary of 12 pages.
33. She also referred to the HCPTS Practice Note Fitness to Practise Impairment dated August 2025 at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 which read as follows:
“2. The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public and the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish registrants for their past acts and omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. It does this by:
a. protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public
b. promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions it regulates
c. promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.
3. Fitness to practise is not defined in the Health Professions Order 2001, but it is generally accepted to mean that a registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively.
4. Impaired fitness to practise means more than a suggestion that a registrant has done something wrong. It means a concern about their conduct, competence, health or character which is serious enough to suggest that the registrant is unfit to practise without restriction, or at all.”
34. She also referred to paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Practice Note which confirms as follows:
“11. As stated above, the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense; that fitness to practise “is impaired.”
12. A Registrant may have been impaired at the time of the failing identified in the allegation, however the Panel’s task is to form a view about the registrant’s current fitness to practise. Panels do this by taking account of the way in which the registrant has acted or failed to act in the past and, looking forwards whether they consider that the registrant’s ability to practise safely is compromised and/or whether public confidence in the profession would be undermined in the absence of a finding of impairment
13. Panels may find it helpful to ask themselves these questions:
a. Whether the Registrant has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a service user at unwarranted risk of harm;
b. Whether the Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach a fundamental tenet of the profession;
c. Whether the Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to act dishonestly;
d. Whether it is highly unlikely that the conduct will be repeated.”
35. Miss Davison confirmed the Registrant had not provided any response to the Notice of Hearing or made any representations to the Panel to be considered. She helpfully detailed, however, the accounts provided by the Registrant to various parties, including his initial call to the leisure centre, his contact with the police, during the Trust’s internal disciplinary process and his admissions in the criminal proceedings in the lead up to the trial. She confirmed that, whilst the Registrant had initially denied responsibility for the use of his mobile device in the cubicle, claiming his son was initially responsible, he had ultimately admitted his actions at the Crown Court.
36. Miss Davison detailed how the Registrant had submitted to various parties that he was struggling with his mental health at the time of the incident, that he had attended several distressing incidents at work, some of which were hangings. He also he was dealing with the loss of the family dog, he was having suicidal thoughts and had been unable to speak to anyone about these issues. He stated that he had been acting out of character at the time of the incident, hoping that someone would see his actions, report him to the authorities and, as a result, he would have a break from his suicidal thoughts. He claimed that he had made no attempt to record the person in the next cubicle but had simply wanted to elicit a response. Miss Davison submitted that the Registrant had changed his account in relation to his attempt to record the person in the cubicle as a result of his plea to the criminal charge of voyeurism
37. Within the disciplinary proceedings, Miss Davison confirmed the Registrant had accepted his actions were not appropriate but had pointed out that he was not acting in a professional capacity at the time. He had stated his actions were not deliberate but admitted breaching his contractual obligations in that his actions would undermine public confidence in the Trust and services and would bring the Trust and profession into disrepute. He had stated that he loved working for the ambulance service and wanted to continue working for the Trust.
38. In relation to the Registrant’s purported mental health issues, Miss Davison confirmed he had not submitted any evidence to the HCPC in support of this or to confirm what steps he had taken to address this. The Registrant had asserted to the Trust that his mental health issues had contributed to the offence and suggested he had had a meeting with a counsellor that he had found beneficial but he had not submitted any evidence in support of this.
39. Miss Davison submitted that the assessment of seriousness was an important part of every decision. She submitted that the Registrant’s actions involved sexual misconduct and the public would consider this was far below the standard expected of a paramedic and would undermine the public’s confidence in the profession. She submitted that when considering harm, it was the risk of harm that was important, although in this case, it was clear from the Judge’s sentencing remarks that actual harm had been caused to the complainant as a result of the Registrant’s actions. She submitted that, whilst the Registrant had initially denied any sexual motivation in his actions, by his guilty plea to the
offence at the Crown Court, he had admitted recording the private act for his own or for another’s sexual gratification.
40. Miss Davison referred the Panel to the personal and public components of impairment.
41. In relation to the personal component, she submitted that there is no evidence that the Registrant has taken any remedial action, although in light of the sexual nature of the Allegation she submitted that the conduct would not be easily remediable. She confirmed that the criminal court had believed the Registrant capable of rehabilitation following the assessment by Probation Services in the Pre-Sentence Report and his remorse had been noted in the Judge’s sentencing remarks. She submitted, however, that nothing had been provided by the Registrant to the HCPC to confirm this remorse and there was no evidence of insight either, therefore the risk of to the public still remained.
42. In relation to the public component, Miss Davison submitted that public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. She submitted that the Allegation was so serious that wider public interest requires a finding of impairment.
43. The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that the test to consider is whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired today rather than at the time the concerns were raised. The Panel was also referred to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Fitness to Practise Impairment, in particular the guidance in relation to both the personal and public components, to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of each component.
44. In the judgement of the Panel the Registrant’s actions in recording the private act of the female in the cubicle next to him at the swimming baths demonstrated serious behavioural and attitudinal risks. The Panel considered that, whilst the Registrant had entered a late plea in the criminal proceedings and was credited a reduction in his sentence for doing so, this did not demonstrate any element of insight as he had initially attempted to blame his young son and the late guilty plea may have been entered to mitigate his sentence. As such the Panel could find no evidence whatsoever that the Registrant has sought to remediate his actions.
45. The Panel noted the health issues detailed by the Registrant during the employer’s internal proceedings, but agreed that these were applicable to every paramedic and there were procedures, such as TRiM (Trauma Risk Management), that enabled paramedics to seek help. Whilst the Panel noted the Registrant’s account that he had sought help, this was only after the offence had taken place and he had not reached out prior to that. In addition, the Panel was concerned that no evidence had been provided by the Registrant during the course of these regulatory proceedings to support his assertion in relation to the mental health issues he says he faced at the time, therefore it felt that little weight could be attached to this.
46. The Panel also noted the Registrant’s comment that he was not on shift, in uniform or acting in a professional capacity when committing the offence concerned. The Panel, however, noted the high standards that he was expected to maintain, and that he was responsible for taking care of his health or reporting any issues when appropriate to do so.
47. The conclusion of the Panel was that there is a high risk of repeating the established conduct. The Registrant’s fitness to practise is therefore impaired in respect of the personal component.
48. With regard to the public component of impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel considered the offence subject to the conviction to be very serious, involving a sexual offence committed against a vulnerable person in a state of undress in a public changing room with care of a small child. The Panel agreed that a member of the public would be horrified to know that a Paramedic attending to them or their loved ones in an emergency situation had been convicted of such an offence and was on the Sex Offenders Register.
49. In deciding whether the public component of impairment of fitness to practise is established, a panel is required to consider protection of the public from the risk of harm, ensuring that public confidence in the profession is maintained and upholding proper professional standards. Each of these issues requires a finding of impairment. The Panel’s finding in relation to the personal component translates to a need to protect the public from the risk of future harm. Fair-minded members of the public would be appalled by the Registrant’s behaviour and would be aghast were no restriction to be placed on his ability to practise. Furthermore, the Panel would be failing in its duty to ensure that proper professional standards were upheld were there to be no finding of impairment.
50. The consequence of these findings is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction
51. Miss Davison confirmed that sanction is a matter for the Panel and referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 which gives panels the authority to impose sanctions in regulatory proceedings. She helpfully took the Panel to various elements of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy dated March 2026, highlighting the suggested categories of serious cases and the guidance in relation to both conviction cases and how panels should approach the issue of different elements of sentences imposed by criminal courts.
52. Miss Davison reminded the Panel that their role is not to punish the Registrant. She outlined the sanctions and orders available, confirming that these must be considered in ascending order, taking into account all aspects of the case. She submitted that the sanction decided upon should be the least restrictive to address the sanction aims which included the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulation of it, together with the declaration of proper professional standards.
53. Miss Davison referred the Panel to the guidance within the Sanctions Policy in relation to the assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, submitting that the only mitigating factor of relevance in this case was that the incident was an isolated act. In relation to aggravating factors, Miss Davison referred to the lack of evidence of any insight or remediation, the sexual misconduct and motivation in this case, together with the Registrant’s inclusion on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 5 years, all of which she submitted were incompatible with the Registrant remaining on the Register, because of the HCPC’s overarching obligation to protect the public from risk of future harm.
54. The Panel considered the submissions made by Miss Davison and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Accordingly, the Panel acknowledged that punishment of the Registrant should form no part of the reason for the imposition of a sanction. Rather, protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulation of it, together with the upholding of proper professional standards are factors that should dictate whether a sanction is required, and, if it is, what that sanction should be. Any sanction decided upon should be the least restrictive to address these proper sanction aims. The various sanction options must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness.
55. The Panel acknowledged this case counts as a “serious case” in that the behaviour was sexually motivated and resulted in a criminal conviction. The Panel agreed that the sentence imposed in the criminal proceedings, together with the ancillary orders, both for a period of 5 years, reflected the severity of offence committed by the Registrant.
56. The Panel was referred to the case of CRHP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 Admin in which the court held that “where a registered professional has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and is still serving their sentence, normally the tribunal should not allow them to return to practice until the sentence has concluded.” The Legal Assessor confirmed that “the sentence” also included, for example, where a practitioner is subject to a suspended sentence, or is undergoing supervision or is subject to a community punishment order.
57. The Panel considered the mitigating factors in this case and noted the following:
- Isolated incident – This was acknowledged by the Panel, although it considered that only a limited amount of weight could be attached to this in light of the serious and sexually motivated nature of the incident.
- Guilty plea entered in the criminal proceedings - The Panel considered this could have been a mitigating factor but attached no weight to this given the plea was only entered very late in the criminal proceedings, near to the start of the trial and, prior to that, the Registrant had dishonestly blamed his child for the incident.
- Remorse – The Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks in the criminal proceedings made brief reference to the Registrant’s remorse, although there was no further detail. The Panel considered that it could attach very little weight to this as the Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory proceedings, he had not expressed any remorse during his correspondence with the HCPC or made any submissions of remorse to the Panel for consideration.
58. The Panel noted that the Registrant had no previous HCPC fitness to practise findings against him, but did not consider this to be a mitigating factor since all registrants are expected to be of good character.
59. The Panel then considered the aggravating factors in this case and noted the following:
- Insight – The Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory proceedings or provided any evidence of insight for the Panel to consider.
- Late guilty plea – The Panel noted the denial of the offence by the Registrant from his initial contact with the authorities until a few days before the trial date. The Panel agreed this initial denial demonstrated the Registrant’s rejection of accountability and added to the lack of insight on his behalf, which was of concern to the Panel.
- Remediation – The Panel had no evidence that the Registrant had remediated his behaviour as he had failed to engage with the HCPC proceedings; he had voluntarily absented himself from attending the hearing and had not made any written or oral submissions.
- Vulnerability of Person A – The Panel agreed this was an aggravating feature in light of the circumstances of the offence. They noted she was in a public place, in a state of undress and caring for her own child at the time when the Registrant violated her dignity, privacy and sense of safety by the actions he ultimately admitted.
- Harm – The Panel considered the impact of the Registrant’s actions on Person A, the Judge’s sentencing remarks noted that she was outraged and suffered flashbacks as a result of the incident.
- Dishonesty – The Panel noted the Registrant had not simply denied the offence when challenged by the authorities, but he had falsely blamed his own child who he initially stated was responsible for using the mobile device concerned. The Panel agreed that this dishonesty and attempt to deflect blame was a seriously aggravating factor in this case.
- Sexual motivation – The admission to the offence of voyeurism confirmed the Registrant had committed the actions for his own sexual gratification. The Panel agreed this was a seriously aggravating factor in light of his profession as a Paramedic and his involvement with vulnerable members of the public, some of who would be in a state of undress.
60. The Panel considered that this is a case that requires the imposition of a sanction. To take no further action would neither protect the public from the risk of future harm that has already been identified, nor would it maintain confidence in the profession or the Regulator. For the same reason a Caution Order would not be appropriate. The case is not one of clinical shortcomings and there are no Conditions of Practice that can satisfactorily address the attitudinal and behavioural shortcomings demonstrated by the Registrant’s conduct. A Suspension Order would protect the public from the risk of future harm for the duration of the Order but would neither protect against the risk of harm upon its expiry nor would it reflect the seriousness of what has been proven.
61. The Panel therefore determined that the only appropriate sanction in this case was a striking off order. The Panel considered their overarching objective is to protect the public and in this case such an order was necessary and proportionate.
62. The Panel considered the guidance in the case of CRHP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 Admin and noted that the Registrant is currently serving a community sentence for a period of 18 months (until 19 December 2026) and will be subject to sex offender registration a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 5 years (until 19 December 2030). The Panel agreed that it was incompatible for the Registrant who was subject to this sentence and these very serious sexual ancillary orders to return to practice which involve him regularly treating vulnerable members of the public.
63. The Panel considered the guidance contained in paragraph 39 of the Sanctions Policy which provides:
“Some conduct may be considered fundamentally incompatible with continued registration because it represents a particularly serious departure from the standards required of HCPC registrants.”
64. The Panel also noted the guidance contained in paragraph 180 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:
“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate, whether or not the conduct is included in the examples of such conduct in the list above, where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process."

65. Before confirming that the sanction to be imposed should be one of striking off, the Panel whether this was a proportionate response. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s interests, but decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public.

66. The Panel was satisfied that it was as no lesser sanction would protect the public from the risk of repetition or would sufficiently ensure public confidence in the Profession or would send an appropriate message to other registrants of the total unacceptability of the Registrant’s actions.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Benjamin Southam from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order
1. Miss Davison made an application for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period and the period until an appeal had been determined, should an appeal be made.
2. She confirmed that the sanction imposed would not take effect for at least 28 days and the public would not be protected by any order until then. If an appeal were to be made by the Registrant, the sanction imposed would not come into effect until that appeal had been withdrawn of otherwise disposed of. She submitted that whilst the Registrant had been subject to in Interim Suspension Order during the regulatory proceedings, this order will end today and will no longer be in effect.
3. Miss Davison therefore submitted that it was necessary and proportionate for an interim order to be imposed for reasons of public protection and otherwise in the public interest.
4. Miss Davison confirmed that the Registrant had been given fair notice of the potential for this application within the Notice of Hearing.
5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note Interim Orders updated in June 2026. In particular the Panel had regard to the section relating to interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed.
6. The Panel was advised to consider whether such an order is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or if it is in the Registrant’s own interests. The Panel also considered the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public.
7. The Panel considered whether to impose an interim order. In its findings on impairment the Panel concluded that there is a need to protect the public from the risk of harm. The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with those earlier findings and the imposition of a Striking Off Order to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order was not necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest.
8. For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel therefore determined that an 18-month

History of Hearings for Benjamin Southam