Stephen Chance-Hyett

Preliminary Matters

1.    The Registrant was in attendance and not represented. Mr Soliman for the HCPC noted that at the previous hearings the Registrant had raised matters relating to his private life. Mr Soliman requested that, in the absence of knowing what issues the Registrant might raise today, the Panel consider that parts of the hearing be heard in private.

2.    Mr Soliman informed the Panel that it was not anticipated that any of the HCPC evidence would require the Panel to sit in private. 

3.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor who referred to Rule 10 and to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, the Panel had regard to the protection of the private lives of the Registrant. The Panel concluded that it would be in the interests of justice and fairness to allow the Registrant to give evidence on those matters in private, allowing him the opportunity to be more open. The Panel concluded that such matters are likely to be discrete and are not inextricably linked to the Allegation. Therefore, the Panel decided that it is feasible to conduct the hearing in public and only hear the discrete matters of the Registrant’s health and private life in private.

Background

4.    The Registrant is a HCPC-registered Paramedic. He was previously employed by South West Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“SWAST”) and was based at Staverton Ambulance Station. The Registrant had been employed by SWAST since 2004 and had been in the position of Operations Officer since 2014.

5.    In August 2022 a concern was raised detailing allegations of inappropriate sexual touching by the Registrant of one colleague and sexualised comments by the Registrant towards another colleague. SWAST undertook internal disciplinary proceedings, the outcome of which on 6 December 2022 was a Final Written Warning, demotion to Paramedic and a move to another place of work. On 29 July 2023 the HCPC received a referral form from SWAST regarding the Registrant’s conduct. 

6.    A substantive hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee took place on 13-17 January 2025, 18-20 June 2025 and 3-5 November 2025. 

7.    The allegations related to an incident of sexual touching of a colleague and conversations with colleagues about sexual positions that crossed professional boundaries. 

8.    The Panel found the facts proved in their entirety and that they amounted to misconduct. It also found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired in respect of the public component and imposed a sanction of Suspension for 4 months. The Suspension Order took effect on 3 December 2025.

9.    This is the first review of the Suspension Order. 

Submissions 

The submissions outlined below are a summary of the HCPC’s oral submissions to the Panel and are not a verbatim account.

HCPC

10.    Mr Soliman for the HCPC provided the Panel with brief details of the background to the case which led to the finding of impairment on the ground of misconduct.

11.    Mr Soliman submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired and he invited the Panel to consider extending the period of suspension. He made no representations in relation to the duration of any further period of suspension.

12.    Mr Soliman highlighted to the Panel the new allegations referred to the HCPC in January 2026. These relate to concerns of unprofessional or inappropriate behaviour and/or communication in May 2025.

13.    Mr Soliman advised the Panel that the HCPC intend to apply for an Interim Order in respect of those allegations in due course. 

14.    Mr Soliman stated that the Registrant had confirmed his attendance at today’s hearing on 24 March 2026 but otherwise has not engaged further with the HCPC since the final hearing in November 2025. Mr Soliman advised the Panel that the Registrant describes his current position as semi-retired and not in work.

15.    In relation to ongoing impairment Mr Soliman noted that the previous Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practice to be impaired in relation to the public component alone. He submitted that in reviewing the Suspension Order and considering current impairment the Panel today was entitled to consider both the private and public elements of impairment.

16.    Mr Soliman submitted that the new allegations referred to the HCPC by SWAST are relevant to the consideration of the Panel. The concerns are of a similar nature to the allegations previously found proved and cast doubt on the mitigating factors listed by the previous panel in their decision:

“•     The Registrant has developed insight and has reflected at length over the last three years.

•    The Registrant has shown genuine remorse from an early stage, including during the SWAST investigation and prior to the HCPC referral.

…

•    There have been no previous regulatory matters raised against the Registrant during his long career as a Paramedic. No further concerns have been raised since the incidents in Summer 2022, during which time the Registrant has remained in unrestricted practice. In accordance with the character references, the misconduct found against the Registrant appears to be a departure from his usual standard of professional behaviour.

•    The Registrant has shown a willingness to remediate and to address cultural issues within the profession by undergoing some further relevant training (sexual safety charter), by speaking out and actively championing the sexual safety charter.”

In addition, they also engage both of the aggravating factors identified by the previous panel in their decision:

“•     The imbalance of power between the Registrant and Colleague A, who was a younger, junior, female colleague.

•    The Registrant’s actions were sexual in nature and sexually motivated and included non-consensual touching. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Colleague A on a number of occasions, which was an abuse of his professional position.”

17.    An extension of the Suspension Order is appropriate given the overlap in the concerns. 

18.    In response to Panel questions, Mr Soliman was unable to clarify whether the Registrant had self-referred the new concerns to the HCPC. 

Registrant

19.    In his submissions Mr Chance-Hyett told the Panel that, following his suspension from duty by SWAST in May 2025, he did not self-refer the new concerns to the HCPC [redacted] and that he was only made aware of the details of the allegations in September 2025. One of the allegations was not upheld by the SWAST Investigation, after the Trust missed the opportunity to secure CCTV video footage that would have captured the alleged incident.  

20.    He did not self-refer to the HCPC after he was dismissed by SWAST [redacted] pending a workplace appeal. He advised the Panel that his appeal was dismissed in February 2026. He was not aware that SWAST had referred the concerns to the HCPC in January 2026. Mr Chance-Hyett submitted that in his view, the new concerns were unproven and denied and the Suspension Order should be lifted allowing him to return to practice as an HCPC registered Paramedic, not on an Ambulance, but in some form of training, functional assessment or advisory role.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

21.    The Legal Assessor advised that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’, ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and the ‘Sanctions Policy’. 

22.    The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to: 

•     extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect; 

•     make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made; or 

•     replace a suspension order with a conditions of practice order.

23.    The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. 

24.    The purpose of the review is to consider: 

•     Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and 

•     If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public. 

25.    The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account are: 

•     the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision; 

•     the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed; 

•     the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve their professional knowledge and skills;  

•     whether any other fitness to practice issues have arisen; and 

•     whether the registrant has complied with the existing order and, if it is a condition of practice order, has practised safely and effectively within the terms of that order.

26.    The reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed”. Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.

27.    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:

•     protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public; 

•     promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions it regulates; 

•     promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.

28.    In determining fitness to practise, Panels must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component, namely the current competence and behaviour of the registrant concerned; and the ‘public’ component including protecting service users, declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour, and maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned. 

29.    While the previous Panel determined that the Registrant was only impaired on the public component, on review of that Order the new unproven allegations are relevant to the assessment that the Panel must undertake. While the new allegations are unproved, the Panel can take them into account when deciding whether the Registrant has discharged the “persuasive burden” to satisfy the Panel that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired. 

30.    The fact that the original panel found that his fitness to practise was not impaired in respect of the personal component at that time does not preclude the Panel at the substantive review from reaching a different conclusion on the basis of updated information.

31.    In making proportionate decisions on sanction, panels need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public. Therefore, decisions should deal with the concerns raised, but be fair, just and reasonable. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive. 

32.    Panels should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected. This means considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public.

Decision on Impairment    

33.    In reaching its decision today the Panel considered all the information before it, including the 172-page bundle of evidence provided by the HCPC and the submissions made by Mr Soliman and the Registrant. 

34.    The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The Panel was aware that the “persuasive burden” is upon the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel had regard to the decision of the substantive panel. However, it comprehensively reviewed the matter and exercised its own judgment in reaching its decision.

35.    The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes as set out above.

36.    The Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct in this case centred around sexually motivated conduct in respect of two colleagues. 

37.    The Panel first considered whether the Registrant is impaired on the “personal” component. The Panel noted that no specific steps, beyond “continued engagement with the HCPC”, were identified by the previous panel in terms of the Registrant demonstrating his fitness to practise for the review hearing. In that respect the Panel considered that while the Registrant was following legal advice in not self-referring his May 2025 suspension from duty and his December 2025 dismissal by SWAST to the HCPC, that could not override his obligation as a professional regulated by the HCPC to refer himself following being advised about further disciplinary proceedings. 

38.    The Panel considered that had the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC when he was suspended from duty by SWAST in May 2025, in the middle of the HCPC final hearing, the previous panel may not have given as much weight to the mitigating factors identified by them, particularly in relation to insight, remorse and no further concerns having been raised. The Panel considered that there was a lack of insight into his actions given his submissions to the Panel about future employment. 

39.    The Panel felt that had the earlier Panel been aware of the new allegations they might have made a different decision regarding the personal component of impairment, both in terms of potential remediation and the risk of repetition. The Panel decided that the Registrant is currently impaired in relation to the personal component.

40.    The Panel then went on to consider the public component of impairment. The Panel reminded itself that part of its role is to maintain professional standards and uphold confidence in the Paramedic profession.

41.    The Panel considered that the need to protect service users is engaged given the troubling nature of the behaviour. The Panel had concerns that the use of sexualised language and behaviour towards colleagues could extend to service users. While reminding themselves that the new concerns are unproved, the Panel took account of the concern regarding the use of sexualised language when discussing a vulnerable patient and the objectification of a young colleague. The Panel felt that this alleged behaviour was closely linked to the proven allegations and considered that this engaged the Regulator’s role in upholding professional standards.  

42.    The Panel considered that given the nature of the new concerns as well as the facts previously found proved, public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.  

43.    Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction 
 
44.    Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel went on to consider what sanction, if any, was appropriate to impose. 

45.    The Panel considered the options set out in paragraph 3 of the Practice Note “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”. The Panel started with the least restrictive order and considered options of taking no action and/or a Caution Order. However, it decided that neither would provide adequate protection for the public in view of the serious findings in the case, which included sexually motivated conduct. The Panel also considered that neither of these sanctions would uphold public confidence in the profession or the HCPC. 

46.    The Panel next considered the option of a conditions of practice Order. However, as outlined above, the Panel were concerned about the Registrant’s lack of insight into his conduct and considered that his conduct could be considered attitudinal in nature. Therefore, the Panel was unable to formulate any conditions of practice that would be workable and sufficiently mitigate the risks to the public and the wider public interest. 

47.    The Panel next considered the option of extending the Suspension Order. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. Having regard to the substantive hearing panel’s determination, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct represented a serious departure from the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. In considering the Registrant’s insight, the likelihood of repetition and his ability to resolve or remedy his failings, the Panel carefully balanced the weight they could attach to the new concerns given that they are unproven. While the Panel has significant concerns about the Registrant’s level of insight they considered that the Registrant could still develop that insight and may in future be able to remedy his failings. The Panel decided, having regard to all the matters outlined before it, that an extension of the current Suspension Order should be imposed.

48.    In forming the view that a further period of suspension was the appropriate order, the Panel also considered paragraphs 179 and 180 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy in respect of a striking off order. Having considered that the new concerns remain unproved, the Panel considered that a Striking Off Order was disproportionate until that hearing had taken place. The Panel went on to consider duration of the further period of suspension. The Panel decided that the findings of the previous Panel in terms of insight and remediation were significantly undermined by his non-disclosure of the new concerns and his dismissal by SWAST. In those circumstances and in light of the risks to the public, the Panel decided that a further Suspension Order of 12 months is required to protect the public. The Panel took into account the impact this would have on the Registrant but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession or in the regulatory process.

49.    The Panel considered that a 12-month order was required to permit the Registrant a further opportunity to reflect on his conduct, demonstrate insight, and provide evidence of further remediation. 

50.    The Panel also determined that a reviewing panel would be assisted by: 

•    The Registrant’s attendance at a future review hearing; 

•    evidence of him completing training and continuing professional development relating to professional boundaries including the imbalance of power;

•    evidence of him completing training and continuing professional development around gender equality;

•    reflections from the Registrant to include consideration of professional boundaries towards patients and colleagues and relating to the impact of his behaviour on colleagues, the public and the paramedic profession;

•    testimonials / references from current paid and / or unpaid work addressing his behaviour in the workplace, including, but not limited to, professional boundaries in the workplace. 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Stephen Chance-Hyett for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 3 April 2026.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 3 April 2027. 

History of Hearings for Stephen Chance-Hyett