Lee Northcott

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel was provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing which was sent by email to the Registrant's registered email address on 06 May 2026.

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel noted that the email to the Registrant confirmed that the hearing would be taking place remotely via video conference. The date and time of the review hearing was confirmed in the Notice of Hearing.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served in accordance with rules 3, 3A, and 6 of The Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the rules).

Proceeding in Absence of the Registrant

4. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. Rule 11 provides:

“Where the registrant is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the Committee may nevertheless proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of the hearing under rule 6(1) on the registrant.”.

5. The Practice Note Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant provides that:

“If the Panel is satisfied on the issue of notice, it must then decide whether to proceed in the registrant’s absence, having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, and balancing fairness to the registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.”

6. Mr Doyle submitted that the Registrant had made it clear in his email response of 29 June 2026 to correspondence regarding this hearing from the HCPC that he did not intend to participate in this process.

7. The Panel was taken to the Registrant’s email response which was:

“Morning Luke,
Thank you for your contact but I won't be reading the documents or taking part in the hearing.
Thank you again”

8. His earlier responses, in two emails dated 19 March 2026, the Registrant made clear his disinclination to participate in this hearing, by writing:

“No long got your documents from yourself and the wankers at HCPC. Im so grateful as I'd ran out of toilet roll and needed a shite so the documents came in very handy to wipe my arse. only thing I ask in future if you send me anything can please use a softer paper as it was really rough on my starfish.
Regards and fuck off
And also:
Im not acknowledging anything... guess why?? Because I dont give a FLYING FUCK!!
You lot really are thick as shite in the neck of a bottle.
Now you crack on son with the muppets from HCPC and have your hearings and investigations because pal I dont give a shit and you can tell the HCPC from me I earned my qualification as a Paramedic LONG before these idiots came along...they will NEVER TAKE that away from me in my heart but as for the now LEGAL TITLE OF PARAMEDIC tell them to ram it up there arse. Ok?
Good chat now fuck off”.

9. Mr Doyle submitted that all reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Registrant of this hearing. The Registrant was aware of this hearing and had consciously and voluntarily decided not to participate. It was in the public interest to proceed with this case despite the absence of the Registrant.

The Panel’s approach

10. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and observed that the power to proceed in this way is in line with the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant which provides the outline of issues for the Panel to consider including (as Mr Doyle had submitted):

• The nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s absence. In this case there seemed no doubt that the Registrant had intentionally decided to forgo the opportunity to attend this hearing, to be heard and to participate effectively.

• The public interest in advancing the case to a conclusion especially when there is the potential for inconvenience to witnesses.

11. The Panel had in mind the requirements of Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and the general principles of fairness.

12. In accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note, a Panel must first consider whether notice of the proceedings have been served on the Registrant. The Panel must also have consideration of all the circumstances of the case when taking the decision to proceed in absence, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.

13. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was served notice of the hearing by email dated 06 May 2026. The notice confirmed the date of the hearing, that the hearing would take place remotely, the purpose of the hearing, (to decide on disputed facts, current impairment and if necessary, impose a proportionate sanction); and invited the Registrant to provide written submissions if the Registrant wished.

14. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the Registrant with notice of this hearing and that he has made it clear that he has voluntarily and knowingly given up his right to attend for reasons of his own. It was clear to the Panel that the Registrant does not wish to participate. He had voluntarily absented himself and knowingly waived his right to attend.

15. The Panel was satisfied that no purpose would be served in delaying these proceedings. Further, this case is now almost three years old. Accordingly, it was in both the Registrant's interests and in the public interest for this matter to be considered and resolved as scheduled.

16. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to amend the allegation

17. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to exercise its powers to amend the allegation in order to correct some typographical imperfections in the wording of Schedule A to the particulars. The corrections involved:

• making some minor corrections to presumed spelling of non-standard terms,

• were intended to capture faithfully the vulgarisms allegedly used by the Registrant in WhatsApp posts, and
• also to delete some words that were no longer intended to be proved.

18. Mr Doyle said that the proposed amendments were intended to reflect the exhibit DR/05 exhibited by the witness, DR. No additional burden was placed on the Registrant by allowing the amendments, Mr Doyle said, and the allegations were not changed in character nor made appreciably more serious. Mr Doyle submitted that the proposed amendments were made faithful to the source documents of WhatsApp messages allegedly written by the Registrant and recorded in exhibit DR/05 exhibited by the witness, DR, in his signed and attested statement dated 26 January 2025.

19. Mr Doyle said that the Panel had a discretionary power to make minor amendments of this nature under the HCPTS Practice Note Case to Answer Determinations which provided, among other things, that

“A panel may make minor amendments to an allegation without adjourning their consideration of the case. A minor amendment may be to correct a typographical error or to make a stylistic drafting change which does not affect the substance of the case alleged against the registrant.”

20. Mr Doyle invited the Panel to agree that the proposed amendments were not prejudicial to the Registrant. Accordingly, they could be made without adjourning the Panel’s consideration of this case.

21. There were no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

22. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It paid close regard to the importance of ensuring a fair hearing for the Registrant. Minor and non-consequential amendments are permitted under the Practice Note, to correct typographical errors and to bring the Particulars in line with the evidence.

23. The Panel was careful to avoid making any amendment that would alter the nature or the seriousness of any aspect of the particulars. After careful consideration, the Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments were truly minor in nature and were helpful to everyone in understanding the allegations. There was no injustice or unfairness to the Registrant that the Panel could identify in permitting the amendments to be made. Accordingly, the Panel decided to amend the allegations as proposed.

24. In circumstances where:

• there were no observers,

• the Registrant had not attended to admit or to deny the particulars or the allegation, and

• the pronunciation of certain terms in the particulars presented difficulties for the reader-out-loud.

the Panel exercised its inherent power to manage its own procedure, and to declare the amended allegation taken as read.

Papers

25. The papers available to the Panel were:

• a case summary by Mr Doyle, of 14 pages,
• a bundle of correspondence with the Registrant of 6 pages,
• a further correspondence bundle of 4 pages, and
• a final hearing bundle including statements and exhibits of 203 pages.

Background

26. The Registrant is an HCPC registered Paramedic. At the material time, he was employed as a Paramedic by Amvale Medical Transport Limited (‘Amvale’). He was working on a contract they had with University Hospital Leicester NHS Trust, specifically at Leicester Royal Infirmary within the emergency department

27. On 9 December 2022, in a WhatsApp group of ten employees from Amvale, it is alleged the Registrant sent more than twenty inappropriate messages. The WhatsApp group was intended to serve as a professional point of contact between colleagues. It was informal in nature only to promote efficient exchanges of updates and other work-related matters. The Registrant’s messages were unprompted by other members. They were inappropriate in that they included violence-based language, swearing and threats of violence to other colleagues.

28. Following this, DR, reported this incident to Amvale’s Contract Lead.

29. On 31 December 2022, while preparing for a night shift at Leicester Royal Infirmary, it is alleged the Registrant approached DR at the ambulance desk area within the Emergency Department. In the presence of two other individuals and service users, the Registrant is alleged to have questioned DR in an aggressive manner, before punching him in the back.

30. It is then further alleged that the Registrant used his left open palm to hit DR in the right upper arm and threatened to fight DR outside. Following this, DR went home, wrote a statement and reported the incident to the police. On 21 January 2023, DR provided a statement to the police.

31. On 4 January 2023, DR received a phone call from the Registrant, who recorded this conversation. Within that conversation, the Registrant said words to the effect of “You’re fucking dead,” twice to DR. A recording of this conversation was shared with the HCPC.

32. Later that day, DR received a number of messages from the Registrant via WhatsApp. Within this, it is alleged the Registrant messaged DR with words to the effect of “Shit bag..has a weak pathetic individual like yourself anything to say?”

33. On 13 January 2023, a referral was made to the HCPC following concerns raised about the Registrant’s behaviour towards DR. Within that referral, it was confirmed the Registrant had been advised that his services were no longer required by Amvale.

34. On 10 July 2023, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offence of Assault by beating of an emergency worker at Leicester Magistrates’ Court. Following this, he was discharged conditionally for 6 months.

35. On 23 February 2026, the Investigating Committee Panel determined there was a case to answer and referred the allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Witnesses

Witness DR

36. The first of two witnesses was DR, who affirmed and adopted as his evidence in chief:

• both of his signed and attested statements dated 26 March 2025 and 15 September 2025 with

• the associated exhibits, DR/01 to DR/07.

37. DR explained that the ‘LRI forum’ WhatsApp group was a professional forum for personnel working on the contract for medical services to Amvale. The group included a wide range of professionals, such as

• paramedics,
• nurses,
• doctors,
• ECAs, and
• HCAs.

38. The forum was solely for professional communication.

39. The workplace policy in regard to the use of social media was exhibited by DR. At paragraph 11.8, the policy read:

"While using social networking sites in a personal capacity and not acting on behalf of the company it should still be recognised that employees' actions can damage the company's reputation. All communications that are made, even in a personal capacity must not:

• Behave in a manner that would not be acceptable in any other situation
• Bring the company in to disrepute
• Breach confidentiality
•  Make comments that could be considered to be bullying, harassment or discriminatory against any individual."

40. DR confirmed that he had reported the entire conversation containing “unpleasant and inflammatory comments,” not just those concerning Mr. Northcott. Others had become responsive to the Registrant’s offensiveness and excesses of expression. They began also to post similar but not so extreme posts. DR notes that a manager at Amvale had subsequently posted a message on the forum addressing the conversation’s inappropriateness as a direct result of DR ’s report.

41. In his statements, DR explained that on 31 December 2022, he arrived at around 19:00 for his shift at the Hospital Point of Dispensing ("POD") Centre. This area is used as part of the emergency streaming process to help direct patient care without the need for the patient to be triaged. The Registrant was outside the POD centre, which surprised DR as at that time, the Registrant was subject to an internal workplace investigation regarding the threats made in the WhatsApp groups.

42. The Registrant approached DR and said, “You're not in this area tonight, you must be in the main building." DR said that the Registrant spoke to him in an unfriendly tone, saying “I wasn't aware you on shift tonight." The Registrant asked what about shift patterns and then looked at his watch and pointed and forcefully tapped it with his finger, indicating that he was late.

43. DR said that the Registrant began to berate him about timekeeping and demanded to know why he was late. He believed the Registrant thought he was DR’s supervisor or was acting in a supervisory role. The Registrant became verbally aggressive towards DR, began swearing and stated, "You're always fucking late, so why is it this time ay."

44. This occurred in a public and patient-facing area of the Hospital. There were around two staff members at the reception, one Amvale employee and around six patients.

45. The Registrant escalated his abusive and threatening behaviour. The Registrant clenched his fist and proceeded to get physically closer and stated “No, I'm here now, you'll fucking discuss it with me."

46. DR intended to walk away, noticing that the Registrant had clenched his fists by his side. As DR walked past the Registrant, he moved to the side of DR and said, "go on, you fuck off." At that point, DR felt a sharp pain in his back, because the Registrant had punched him. The pain lasted for few seconds before turning into a dull ache. DR said to the Registrant not to punch him, at which point the Registrant the Registrant said, “I didn't, I just gave you a friendly tap."

47. DR pointed out that the assault was captured on CCTV. The Registrant then used his left open palm to hit DR on his right upper arm and threatened to fight outside. DR walked away, pursued by the Registrant who kept pace and repeated, aggressively, a challenge to fight outside.

48. This ultimately resulted in the Registrant being convicted of an assault on DR. DR referred to the certificate of conviction dated 10 July 2023 recording that the Registrant had received a conditional discharge for 6 months in relation to his plea of guilty.

49. DR produced as an exhibit a sound recording of the threatening call made to him by the Registrant on 04 January 2023. The Registrant had already said that he was going to come and find DR, which he took as a continuation of the violent threats already made to DR. DR received a call from the Registrant, which he recorded, knowing the likely content. The Registrant made threats stating, "you're fucking dead.", which troubled DR.

Witness SH

50. The second witness was SH, who affirmed and adopted as his evidence in chief:

• his signed and attested statement dated 17 September 2025, with
• the associated exhibits, SH/01 to SH/03.

51. SH a general manager at Amvale medical and knew the Registrant in his capacity as a Paramedic. SH is not registered with the HCPC.

52. SH ’s evidence concerned the policies relating to social media use and cyber bullying at Amvale. The threats and violent language used by the Registrant against his colleagues was directly in opposition to the policies. He produced as one of his exhibits the signed declaration by the Registrant agreeing to be bound by these policies.

Submissions

53. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that all of the facts could be found proved on the civil standard of balance of probabilities. The certificate of conviction proved the fact of the conviction, and both witnesses gave reliable and credible evidence in support of their recollections of events. The Schedule was proved in its entirety based on the contemporary records where it was derived from and the supporting witness testimony.

54. There were no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

Decision on Facts

55. The Panel paid close regard to the submissions made by Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel also had close regard to the contemporary documents provided as exhibits together with the audio recording provided by DR.

56. The Panel was satisfied that there was nothing to suggest that the documents had been altered or inflated in order to advance a case against the Registrant. All of the records sat well together and fully supported the accounts given by both witnesses.

57. The Registrant had not actively participated in this hearing. He had however, provided responses explaining why he would not attend. Those responses were a very good match for the type of unpleasant, violence-based, and intemperate words and posts attributed to the Registrant. Unusually, the Registrant had, in part, corroborated the case against himself. The voice recording was similarly persuasive of a good match for the kind of expressions that he appeared to have made routinely.

58. Having looked at the records and been satisfied with their value as near contemporary unaltered records, the Panel turned its attention to the witnesses.

59. Both DR and SH had provided concise evidence which was factual in nature and uncontaminated by any sense of malice or ill-will towards their former colleague, the Registrant. The Panel was satisfied that they were restrained and moderate witnesses who did their best to assist the Panel from memory and reference to their exhibits. Mr Doyle invited the Panel to find that DR ’s account was clear, consistent and was supported by contemporary accounts made by him and others immediately following the events of 31 December 2022. Mr Doyle submitted that the witnesses were both credible and reliable. The Registrant had not attended to provide any challenge to the case against him.

60. The Panel systematically assessed each allegation, finding the evidence provided—including witness statements, a certificate of conviction, audio recordings, and text message transcripts—to be sufficient and compelling evidence to prove the facts of each case. It was consistently noted that the Registrant's actions were unprovoked and aggressive.

Particular 1

61. The Panel discussed the evidence relating to the first allegation concerning Mr. Northcott's criminal conviction for a physical assault on DR.

62. The certificate of conviction is sufficient evidence in itself for this particular to be found proved. It was supported by the clear and unembellished evidence of DR. The police investigation produced certain documents which also fully supported the fact of the Registrant’s conviction for an assault on DR. The Registrant had pleaded guilty, which itself is a strong indicator of proof of the fact of conviction. The assault appeared to have been unprovoked. The Registrant had been aggressive to DR from the very beginning of the incident. There was no reason to believe that there had been any element of provocation or of self-defence. The physical assault was not justified in any sense.

63. The Panel found Particular 1 proved.

Particular 2

64. The Panel reviewed the evidence for the second allegation, which concerned an abusive phone call where the Registrant had threatened DR with violence. The recording was vivid as evidence and fully supported the particular. The recording had been made without any hint of entrapment, as was clear when the Registrant, who was the caller, began by making sure of the identity of his victim, DR.

65. The content of the call was appalling and replete with menace directed at DR.

66. DR had been clear that he recognised the caller as the Registrant both from the caller ID on his phone and the Registrant’s voice. This was demonstrated on the recording itself, when the Registrant quickly lapsed into his characteristic malicious and abusive language. This incident was also unprovoked.

67. The Panel found particular 2 proved.

Particular 3

68. The Panel considered the third particular, regarding a threatening message sent by the Registrant on 4 January 2023.

69. The evidence to prove this particular was persuasive, taking into DR 's clear, contemporaneous and consistent statement, along with the evidence of the message itself. The message was characteristically of the Registrant, unprovoked and unjustified. The Panel found no reason to doubt that this particular was true.

70. The Panel found particular 3 proved.

Particular 4

71. The Panel moved on to the fourth particular, concerning inappropriate and threatening messages posted by the Registrant to a group chat named "N Bell LRA forum."

72. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was part of the WhatsApp group. The messages, which were expressed in violent and aggressive way, were not always clear in the meaning of the words used. They often consisted of a kind of argot. The intent behind the messages however were quite unmistakable. They were vile, angry, violence-based and highly aggressive, suggesting extremes of injury to the Registrant’s audience. The Panel considered that the messages could not, on any reasonable interpretation, be regarded as rough banter. The intended victims were identified. There were appalling threats of mutilation and injury towards named individuals.

73. The Registrant had taken the chat to many levels above simple banter and that his aggression was indiscriminate. In one example, he had made hostile comments about someone that he did not even know.

74. Taking all of the evidence as a whole, the Panel were left in no doubt that the Registrant was the sole author and that the messages had been faithfully copied from the original posts without alteration.

75. The Registrant’s messages could be characterised as aggressive and unprompted. The Panel acknowledged that some other colleagues started to use similar language towards the end of the exchange, this was deemed equally inappropriate and did not in any way excuse the Registrant’s conduct. He was the initiator and the sponsor of others’ lapses in Standards.

76. The Panel found particular 4 proved.

Decision on Grounds

77. Having decided that all of the facts were proved, the Panel went onto consider whether the Registrant’s conduct in respect of the particulars amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct.

78. Mr Doyle submitted that misconduct was made out. The Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below that expected of a registered Paramedic.

79. Mr Doyle submitted that in light of the Registrant’s breaches of the 2016 HCPC Standards of Conduct and Performance (2016 Standards) and the 2014 Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014 Standards). These breaches were serious, and the Registrant's conduct met the threshold for serious misconduct. It fell far short of what would be considered proper in the circumstances and prejudiced the reputation of the profession. Mr Doyle submitted that, accordingly, the statutory ground of misconduct had been made out.

Panel’s decision on grounds.

80. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. A finding of misconduct is not a matter of proof. It is a matter of professional judgement by the Panel. The Panel held in mind the principles derived from the cases of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311, Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) and Calheam v GMC [2007 EWHC 2606 and GMC v Meadow [2007] 1 QB 462, CA. This includes conduct which, though not directly patient-facing, nevertheless is of a morally disgraceful kind, going to fitness to practice and diminishing the ability of colleagues to care for patients safely and effectively in a collaborative environment.

81. In the case of Remedy UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin), Mr Justice Elias stated;

“I would derive the following principles from these cases:

i. Misconduct is of two principal kinds. First, it may involve sufficiently serious misconduct in the exercise of professional practice such that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise. Second, it can involve conduct of a morally culpable or otherwise disgraceful kind which may, and often will, occur outwith the course of professional practice itself, but which brings disgrace upon the doctor and thereby prejudices the reputation of the profession.(2) Misconduct falling within the first limb need not arise in the context of a doctor exercising his clinical practice, but it must be in the exercise of the doctor’s medical calling. There is no single or simple test for defining when that condition is satisfied.

ii. Conduct can properly be described as linked to the practice of medicine, even though it involves the exercise of administrative or managerial functions, where they are part of the day to day practice of a professional doctor. These functions include the matters identified in Sadler, such as proper record-keeping, adequate patient communication, proper courtesy shown to patients and so forth. Usually a failure adequately to perform these functions will fall within the scope of deficient performance rather than misconduct, but in a sufficiently grave case, where the negligence is gross, there is no reason in principle why a misconduct charge should not be sustained.

iii. Misconduct may also fall within the scope of a medical calling where it has no direct link with clinical practice at all. Meadow provides an example, where the activity in question was acting as an expert witness. It was an unusual case in the sense that Professor Meadow’s error was to fail to recognise the limit of his skill and expertise. But he failed to do so in a context where he was being asked for his professional opinion as an expert paediatrician. Other examples may be someone who is involved in medical education or research when their medical skills are directly engaged.

iv. Roylance demonstrates that the obligation to take responsibility for the care of patients does not cease simply because a doctor is exercising managerial or administrative functions one step removed from direct patient care. Depending upon the nature of the duties being exercised, a continuing obligation to focus on patient care may co-exist with a range of distinct administrative duties, even where other doctors with a different specialty have primary responsibility for the patients concerned.

v. Conduct falls into the second limb if it is dishonourable or disgraceful or attracts some kind of opprobrium; that fact may be sufficient to bring the profession of medicine into disrepute. It matters not whether such conduct is directly related to the exercise of professional skills.”

82. The Panel considered that each particular by itself satisfied the test of morally disgraceful conduct which amounted to serious professional misconduct. The impact on the Registrant’s colleagues was striking. DR had been placed in a state of apprehension when he was in proximity of the Registrant physically or by phone. DR had been assaulted resulting in the Registrant being convicted of an offence.

83. The Registrant had so damaged the professional use of the WhatsApp group that it gradually became a marketplace for trading disgraceful and vituperative exchanges by the Registrant and others. The impact on the working relationships with the Registrant’s colleagues could easily have resulted in patient harm. Paramedics must be able to work in close collaboration with other Paramedics and professional colleagues to secure patient care, often in situations of emergency. A breakdown in relations caused by the Registrant could self-evidently place patient care in jeopardy in this way.

84. The Panel went on to consider the 2016 Standards and the 2014 Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics. The Panel was satisfied that registrants are not free to disregard the duties imposed on them in the 2016 Standards merely by not being directly involved in patient care. The 2016 Standards inform registrants that:

“If you are registered with us, you must make sure that you are familiar with the standards and that you continue to meet them. As a Registrant, you are personally responsible for the way you behave. You will need to use your judgement so that you make informed and reasonable decisions and meet the standards.”

85. Even if not acting as a Paramedic directly, the Registrant was under a duty to act in accordance with the 2016 Standards in any capacity or in any other aspect of his life. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct fell far short of the Standards in all aspects of the particulars proved.

86. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had breached all of the following 2016 Standards:

2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites
6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible
6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at an unacceptable risk
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession

87. Further, the Registrant had breached the 2014 Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics in the following Standards:

8.1 Be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others
8.5 Be able to select, move between and use appropriate forms of verbal and non¬verbal communication with service users and others
9.1 Be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others

88. The Panel determined that both individually and cumulatively, the Registrant’s actions fell seriously short of the Standards to be expected of a registered Paramedic and amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment    

89. The Panel was invited to consider whether, in its judgement, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired today. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and recognised that its findings in relation to misconduct did not necessarily mean that current impairment of fitness to practise followed. The Panel’s task was to determine whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired, based upon:

• the nature, circumstances and gravity of the conduct concerned;
• the risks, if any, created for the health and safety of the public, especially those patients who may seek help in a potentially tense or otherwise disruptive working environment;
• the risks to the reputation of the Paramedic profession;
• the need to declare and uphold Standards for the Paramedic profession.

90. The Panel kept in mind that any measure of insight shown by the Registrant would become an important factor in assessing and evaluating the likelihood of the Registrant repeating his misconduct and so the level of risk that the public would become exposed to.

91. In its deliberations, the Panel adopted a forward-looking approach to impairment. The Registrant’s past misconduct and any practical and insightful steps taken by him to remedy that misconduct and so remove continuing risk to the public, required the Panel to consider the history of the misconduct and any remediation by the Registrant.

92. In reaching its decision, the Panel paid regard to the HCPTS Practice Note Fitness to Practice Impairment. The Panel paid full regard to the respective submissions made by Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC.

Seriousness

93. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour was serious. The fact that the Registrant had assaulted a colleague, leading to a criminal conviction was itself a matter of substantial concern. As Mr Doyle had remarked, this was “…arguably the most serious” of the particulars. It involved the Registrant punching a colleague and then striking their upper right arm with an open palm, causing physical harm. This led to a criminal prosecution where the Registrant was conditionally discharged for six months for the offence of assault by beating of an emergency worker.

94. The Registrant had made repeated threats of violence after telling DR that "he would see him soon" causing DR significant worry.

95. An inappropriate message was sent to DR on the same day as the assault, after he asked the Registrant to leave him alone.

96. The Registrant sent over 20 repeated and prolonged messages to a work group chat, which contained inappropriate language and threats of violence.

97. All of these matters, taken individually and together, amounted to a serious and sustained departure by the Registrant from expected professional conduct and Standards. There had resulted a damaging impact on colleagues’ well-being as illustrated by the effects on DR . In these circumstances, there was almost certainly an adverse impact on maintaining public confidence in the profession. Some of the Registrant’s behaviour, including the assault, was done openly in view of patients and other members of staff at the hospital. There was likely to be a risk of harm to patients, service users, colleagues and the public, had any service user decided to leave to hospital rather than wait for treatment, or being reluctant to seek help from paramedics in future, having been exposed to this scene.

98. The Registrant had abused his professional position by misusing the WhatsApp group, to which only professional colleagues were admitted.

99. The Registrant’s targeting of DR in particular, resulting in an escalating series of harmful incidents and predatory behaviour. The Registrant appeared to have identified DR as an outlet for his bullying, violent and foul-mouthed campaign of intimidation. There was a grave risk that all of this might result in an adverse impact on the delivery of care and safe practise. Colleagues could not know when the Registrant would next target DR or even someone else, causing the kind of fracture in a safe working environment that imperilled patient and service user care. The Registrant’s inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is likely to have an adverse effect not only on the individuals to whom it is directed, such as DR, but also the collaborative and collegiate culture that is the foundation for the provision of safe and effective care.

100. The Panel observed that despite the totality of the Registrant’s misconduct being apparent to anyone reading the allegation, he had shown no willingness to entertain any form of remediation at all. He remained defiant of his regulator, saying that:

“Now you crack on son with the muppets from HCPC and have your hearings and investigations because pal I dont give a shit and you can tell the HCPC from me I earned my qualification as a Paramedic LONG before these idiots came along...they will NEVER TAKE that away from me in my heart but as for the now LEGAL TITLE OF PARAMEDIC tell them to ram it up there arse. Ok?”

101. In all of these circumstances, the Registrant’s conduct was serious and pointed directly to his fitness to practise being impaired. The risk of repetition was clear and without any insight of positive remediation by the Registrant, the risk of repetition was equally apparent.

Personal component

102. The Panel first considered the personal component of the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The Registrant’s behaviour is, in principle, remediable, though not easily remediable given the evidence of the Registrant’s unshakeable attitudinal issues. It would be necessary for the Registrant to develop some insight into the reality of his conduct, which may be, for him, unremarkable but is highly damaging for others.

103. There was no evidence of even a glimmer of recognition or understanding by the Registrant of the seriousness of his conduct and the impact that it had on individuals and the wider public. He had been presented with an opportunity to engage in this process. However, even as late as today, he has failed to begin to develop the understanding necessary to begin the work needed to remediate.

104. The Registrant appeared to regard the basis of this hearing as personal, somehow directed personally against him. His contempt for his regulator was profound. In reality, as the Registrant ought to know, the Panel is solely concerned with protecting the public. The Registrant had not paused to reflect on how his conduct diminished the protection of the public. There was no recognition that the safety of persons attending the hospital concerned might have been harmed, physically and emotionally as they waited for care. The Registrant had not begun to explore the possibility that his actions diminished the public’s trust and confidence in the Paramedic profession and failed completely to uphold the profession’s Standards.

105. The Panel, having found that the Registrant’s conduct is potentially remediable, but had not been, what then, in the Panel’s view, was the risk of repetition? The Panel was satisfied that the insolent and dismissive stance adopted by the Registrant made repetition very likely. There was no remorse or apology. There was nothing close to insight. Therefore, the risks to the public remained undiminished.

106. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

107. The Panel then turned to the public component of impaired fitness to practise, which overlaps to an extent with the personal component. The overarching objective of public protection with its three limbs as already set out are again in view. The HCPC has set the standards it expects of registered Paramedics, and the Panel has already considered the Registrant’s departures from those Standards. Maintaining and upholding those Standards at all times and in all circumstances is necessary in order to secure the protection of the public. It is a personal obligation that falls on all registered paramedics.

108. The Panel recognised that the public must always have confidence in the paramedics who treat them. The public is entitled to expect registrants to not only be professionally competent, but also to act with decency and integrity. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had failed the public and his profession. In all of the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that any member of the public would find the Registrant’s behaviour to be harmful, disgraceful and deplorable. The Panel considered that it would undermine the whole process, the profession and regulator and their trust in the Panel to protect the public, if the Registrant’s lack of fitness to practise was not answered with a finding of impairment. Given the nature of the allegation and the facts found proved, public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment in the Registrant’s case.

109. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

110. Mr Doyle invited the Panel to consider the guidance available. He did not invite the Panel to impose any particular order. The Panel was told that the Registrant has been subject to an Interim Suspension Order since 22 November 2023. Mr Doyle reminded the Panel of the prominence that the Policy gives to violence as a serious matter.

111. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case, the Panel considered the guidance set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy (The Policy). The Panel took into account the submissions by Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel is aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is:

• to protect the public including colleagues and patients,
• to maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession, and
• to uphold the Standards of conduct and behaviour.

112. The Panel also held in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the seriousness of the misconduct involved. Any sanction must command the respect and confidence of the public in the Panel’s willingness to uphold the statutory objective of the HCPC. Any sanction however must always be the least restrictive but equally effective alternative to fully protect the public.

113. The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel first looked at the mitigating factors under the headings of:

• Insight
• Remorse
• Apology, and
• Remediation.

114. The Panel considered that there was no demonstration of insight or remorse. The Registrant had not apologised, and nothing had been done by way of remediation. If the Registrant had ever contemplated the situation of fear that he placed DR in and wished to express his remorse and commitment to never do anything like it again, he did not share it with the Panel.

115. In these circumstances, the Panel was unable to find any insight. The Registrant is clearly capable of communicating in a normal way, as evidenced by his email of 29 June 2026. The Panel could only conclude that the Registrant had deliberately decided not to attempt any form of remediation, as supported by his more emphatic emails of 19 March 2026.

116. The Panel then looked at the aggravating factors under the headings:

• Repetition of concerns/pattern of unacceptable behaviour
• Lack of insight, remorse, or apology
• Lack of remediation
• Service user harm/potential service user harm

117. The seriousness of the Registrant’s behaviour and their consequences was an aggravating factor. The brazenness of the Registrant’s aggressive words and actions were compounded by his threats of violence made in the telephone call and in the WhatsApp group messages. There was no evidence of insight, remediation, apology or recognition of the harmfulness of his actions both to colleagues and to the public who were innocent, and vulnerable, observers. The Panel considered the potential harm to patients to be an aggravating factor in this case.

118. The Panel considered that the Registrant was a continuing risk to the public and to professional colleagues.

119. The Panel also observed that the Policy identifies a failure to work in partnership as one of the heads of serious cases. This was also true of violence. The Panel recognised that the current Policy has adopted the passages regarding violence in response to developing its obligation to protect the public.

120. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It decided that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order, in this case, would not be appropriate or proportionate given the seriousness of the misconduct concerned which involved not only the potential for harm to patients but direct harm caused to a professional colleague. The misconduct was not an isolated incident but was part of a pattern of deteriorating violent behaviour. It could in no way be described as relatively minor in nature. The opposite is true.

121. The Panel has found that there is a risk of repetition. This is not because it considers the registrant to be incapable of remediation. Rather it is because of the troubling disregard for the possibility of remediation shown by the Registrant. There was no recognition by him of the degree of harm caused. Nor was there an appreciation of the measures necessary to remediate that which would help to protect colleagues in future and reassure the Panel and the wider public. The Panel had no such information or reassurance.

122. The Panel considered but rejected as not being appropriate, the possibility of a Conditions of Practice Order being imposed. These were matters of attitude and disposition, not clinical failures where Conditions of Practice are more meaningful. In any event, the Registrant has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with Conditions of Practice. The Panel took into account that the Policy provides that a Conditions of Practice Order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

(a) the registrant has insight;
(b) the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
(c) there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
(d) appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
(e) the Panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
(f) a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;
(g) the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.

123. For the reasons set out above, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice was appropriate and would not serve to protect the public including professional colleagues at work.

124. The Panel then considered whether a Suspension Order was appropriate and proportionate. The Panel recognised that there is evidence of attitudinal general failures which are likely to prevent the registrant from remedying his misconduct. The Panel noted that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

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

125. The Panel concluded that this violent and offensive conduct was a serious breach of the Standards. There is no information before the Panel that would satisfy any of the factors that would permit a suspension order to be a meaningful and purposeful sanction in this case. In particular, without evidence of insight and a commitment to work with sanctions in order to achieve a restoration of his previous good standing and trust, the Panel could not be satisfied that the issues were unlikely to be repeated. The Panel has found that a risk of repetition remains high.

126. The Panel then considered the sanction a Striking Off Order. A Striking Off Order would remove the Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising his profession. Striking off is a long-term sanction as illustrated by the effects of Article 33(2) of the Health and Care Professions Order which provides that, unless new evidence comes to light, a person may not apply for restoration to the Register within five years of the date of a Striking Off Order being made, and panels do not have the power to vary that restriction.

127. The Policy observes that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving failure to work in partnership and violence which is emphasised at paragraph 93 of the Policy.

"Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession…. Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted."

128. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was appropriate because the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public. This includes not just protecting colleagues at work and patients who might be at risk of harm, important though that is. It extends also to maintaining public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.

129. The Panel understood that a Striking Off Order has the potential to have a significant impact on a Registrant. The decision was not arrived at lightly. However, for the reasons expanded on above. The Panel considered that it would be failing in its duty not to impose a Striking Off Order in the whole circumstances of this case.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Lee Northcott from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to impose an interim order of suspension in this case.  He referred to the Sanctions Policy and the Practice Note Interim Orders.  Mr Doyle submitted that an Interim Suspension Order was essential, and an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient in light of the Panel’s findings.  In circumstances where a Striking Off Order has been made in a case involving such a serious pattern of behaviour including a criminal offence, only an Interim Suspension Order would be sufficient.

2. He submitted that any other course would contradict the Panel’s decision-making in the substantive order.

3. Mr Doyle invited the Panel to impose an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to allow for any appeal to be concluded.  

4. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and recognised that it must act fairly and proportionately.

5. The Panel concluded that it was necessary to impose an interim order to provide for the possibility of an appeal being made, which would have the effect of interrupting the substantive order coming into effect.  This was a serious matter, and the public must be protected until the substantive order comes into effect.   

6. The Panel decided that in all of the circumstances and for the reasons set out in the substantive determination, only an interim order of suspension would sufficiently protect the public pending the resolution of any appeal.  In the event that no appeal is made, the interim order will cease to have effect after 28 days and the substantive order will come into effect.

Decision

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

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

 

History of Hearings for Lee Northcott

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
01/07/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off