Daniel Davis

Background

1.    The Registrant is a HCPC registered Paramedic who first registered with the HCPC in January 2024. 

2.    At the material time the Registrant was engaged on a freelance basis by Lambda Medical Ltd (Lambda). Lambda is an independent ambulance service that provides event medical cover and ambulance transportation services. The Registrant was also employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) from 29 April 2024.  

3.    While engaged on a contract with Lambda, the Registrant worked two shifts with Colleague A, a Student Paramedic, on 24 April 2024 and 20 June 2024. Colleague A raised concerns about the Registrant’s conduct during the shift on 20 June 2024. An internal investigation was conducted by DD, Resilience Manager of Lambda, following which the Director of Lambda made a referral to the HCPC on 5 July 2024.

4.    At a substantive hearing held between 17 and 21 November 2025 a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee found a number of particulars of the Allegation proven, some of which were admitted by the Registrant. It found that the incidents amounted to misconduct, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. As a sanction the panel imposed a 6-month Suspension Order.

5.    At paragraph 112 of the decision, the panel indicated that ‘a future panel may be assisted by evidence of the Registrant’s reflections on the findings made by the panel together with evidence of how he has assimilated the learning from his reflections and training into his day-to-day interaction with colleagues with particular regard to the findings of sexual misconduct’.

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

Submissions

7.    Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of current impairment and left this as a matter of judgment for the Panel. Ms Sampson outlined the background to the Allegation and highlighted the factors which the previous panel found relevant in its decision on impairment.

8.    The Registrant gave evidence on affirmation during which he confirmed that he had taken the time during his period of suspension to process what had happened and to reflect on his behaviours by formulating a development plan.

9.    The Registrant provided details of the voluntary work he had undertaken during the last six months and advised that he was working in a high-pressure environment where he had been required to lead a team on moorland engaged in outdoors activities. He stated that he had been required to demonstrate behaviours similar to those required as a registered Paramedic, including leadership, professionalism and safeguarding. The Registrant gave the Panel information on the continuing professional development (CPD) he had undertaken to keep his clinical knowledge and skills up to date and also to develop his insight on maintaining respectful and professional relationships.

10.    The Registrant was asked questions by Ms Sampson and the Panel, and he acknowledged that what he had done was wrong and he was able to reflect on the impact of his behaviour on Colleague A, the profession and the wider public. He expressed that he had spent time rebuilding relationships to gain trust and confidence in him on a return to practice, and the need for professionalism in any environment. The Registrant also described how he had been able to reach out to friends and colleagues for support which he had found to be beneficial.

11.    The Registrant gave an example of how he had intervened when he witnessed inappropriate behaviour towards a young female at the RAF air cadets

12.    The Registrant was able to articulate what a return to practice would look like for him, seeking support from his colleagues and line manger to ensure he was able to practise safely and effectively.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

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

14.    Any order made following an Article 30(1) review only takes effect from the date on which the order under review expires, so the Registrant must continue to comply with the expiring order until then.

15.    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. 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.

16.    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 include:

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

17.    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...”. 

18.    The decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection.

19.    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.

20.    In determining fitness to practise, Panels must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the registrant concerned; and the ‘public’ component: those critically important public policy issues.

21.    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. 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

22.    In reaching its decision today the Panel considered all the information before it. 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.

23.    The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of the HCPC bundle of 41 pages, the addendum bundle of 15 pages, and the CPD bundle of 18 pages which included a testimonial.

24.    The Panel first of all considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired looking at both the personal component and the public component. The Panel acknowledged the comments of the panel who heard the substantive matter in its decision.

25.    The Panel considered the reflective pieces provided by the Registrant to be detailed and gave evidence that the Registrant’s insight had developed. The Registrant expressed remorse and acknowledged that his behaviour had been inappropriate, fallen below the standard expected of a HCPC registered Paramedic, and he had taken steps to reflect on the impact of it upon Colleague A, his colleagues, the profession and the wider public.

26.    The Panel also considered the positive testimonial, although it noted that this did not specifically refer to the Registrant’s interactions with females within a professional environment.

27.    The Panel considered the comments of the panel who conducted the substantive hearing at paragraph 80 in relation to sexually motivated behaviour, where it was stated ‘The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was potentially remediable, but that such remediation would require in depth reflection and evidence that reflection and learning about requirements for professional behaviour and respect for all colleagues has been embedded in the Registrant’s practice’.

28.    The Panel was of the view that the evidence of the Registrant’s remediation in this regard was relatively limited, his CPD and learning did not cover sexually motivated conduct, and his reflections did not focus heavily on this element of the findings. There was little evidence before this Panel to support that the Registrant had been working with young females in a respectful, inclusive and professional manner.

29.    The Panel was of the view that there was little evidence that the learning undertaken by the Registrant was embedded, should he be permitted to return to unrestricted practice, such that it would minimise or eliminate the risk of repetition of any sexually motivated conduct. Accordingly, due to the lack of remediation in relation to the sexual element, there remains a risk of repetition. 

30.    Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had undertaken a great deal of work in developing himself, it considered that the Registrant could have done more to remediate in relation to the sexually motivated behaviour. It concluded that the Registrant had failed to discharge the persuasive burden to demonstrate 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...”.

31.    It was determined that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

32.    The Panel went on to consider the public component. Due to the identified risk of repetition, there inevitably remains a risk to the public and there is a need to protect the public from risk of harm.

33.    In considering the public component the Panel found that members of the public would be concerned, and would not have confidence in the profession, or in the regulator, if the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice at present. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component also.

34.    The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired on both the personal and the public component and it must go on to consider the issue of the appropriate sanction to address the concerns identified.

Decision on Sanction

35.    The Panel looked at the Sanctions Policy considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it was necessary to protect the public. The Panel was aware that the sanction is not a punishment for the Registrant but that it may have a punitive effect. The Panel was aware that once they reached a tentative view that an appropriate sanction has been identified, two further considerations should be made. One is to consider the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addresses the aims of a sanction. The other is to be satisfied that it is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

36.    The Panel do not seek to repeat the aggravating and mitigating features identified by the panel in the previous decision.

37.    The Panel first considered mediation or taking no action and determined that these were not appropriate due to the serious nature of the concerns and the risk of repetition identified in relation to the sexually motivated conduct. These outcomes would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process.

38.    The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to impose a sanction.

39.    The Panel then considered whether a caution order would be appropriate and had regard to paragraphs 146-151 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel concluded that the matter found proved was serious in nature. The Panel found that there was a risk of repetition, and as a consequence of that there is a risk of harm to the public which would not be effectively managed by a caution order. In addition, public confidence in the profession and its regulation would not be maintained by the imposition of a caution order. For these reasons the Panel concluded that a caution order would not be appropriate.

40.    The Panel went on to consider a conditions of practice order and had regard to paragraphs 152-166 of the Sanctions Policy.

41.    The Panel noted paragraph 152 of the Sanctions Policy which states ‘A conditions of practice order allows a registrant to remain in practice subject to restrictions which reflect the panel’s finding as to their fitness to practise. It requires the registrant to undertake certain actions or restrict their practice in certain ways’.

42.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated good insight and that the conduct was capable of being remediated. The Panel was not persuaded that the Registrant had fully assimilated and embedded his reflections and learning into his practice. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant would comply with any conditions imposed due to his engagement in the regulatory process and the insight which had developed since the substantive hearing. 

43.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant could return to practise with conditions without exposing the public to a risk of harm, as the Registrant appeared committed to resolving the concerns. The Panel considered that it could formulate conditions which were workable and reasonable and it noted that the concerns were not clinical in nature.

44.    The Panel next went on to consider a suspension order, and it concluded that this would be disproportionate as the Registrant had utilised the time of the current suspension to develop insight and personal learning.

45.    As the concerns were such that they could be appropriately addressed with conditions of practice the Panel considered that a period of 6 months was appropriate to allow sufficient time for the Registrant to demonstrate full remediation in relation to the sexually motivated behaviour.

46.    This order will be reviewed prior to its termination, and the Panel considered that the reviewing panel will be assisted by the following:

•    The Registrant’s attendance at the hearing;
•    References and testimonials from colleagues, particularly those who are female detailing the Registrant’s professional interactions with them.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that for a period of 6 months from the date that this Order comes into effect you, Daniel Davis, must comply with the following conditions of practice: 

1.     Within 4 months of the Operative Date you must: 

A.    satisfactorily complete a course on sexually inappropriate conduct in the workplace and maintaining professional boundaries; and 

B.    forward a copy of your results to the HCPC within seven days of receiving them. 

2.     You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor, registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 28 days of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

3.     You must work with your workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the following areas: 

A.    working with female colleagues in a respectful and professional manner;

B.    attendance upon a course specifically addressing sexually motivated behaviours in the workplace and crossing professional boundaries.

4.     Within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

5.     You must meet with workplace supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan. 

6.     You must allow your workplace supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan and encourage them to provide any report to the HCPC prior to the next review hearing. 

7.     You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing occasions when you have encountered inappropriate or sexually motivated behaviour in the workplace and how you have dealt with this, and must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC on a monthly basis or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period, the first profile or confirmation to be provided within two months of the Operative Date. 

8.     Your reflective practice profile must be signed off by your workplace supervisor including feedback on occasions when you have worked with female colleagues in a respectful and professional manner.

9.     You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions: 

A.    any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work; 

B.    any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application); 

C.    any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application).

10. You must allow the HCPC to share, as necessary, details about your performance, compliance with, and/or progress under these conditions with: 

A.    any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work; 

B.    any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application); 

C.    any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application).

The Order imposed today will apply from 19 June 2026.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 19 December 2026.

History of Hearings for Daniel Davis