Shane Williams
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA35590) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:
1. You purported to meet with, observe and/or assess Person A as part of their University Paramedic training course, on the dates listed in Schedule A, when this was not the case.
2. You signed off Person A’s practice assessment portfolio to demonstrate their competence in certain areas of practise without having adequately observed and/or assessed Person A’s practise in those areas, in that:
a. you signed off a learning contract for Person A regarding ‘cannulation’, dated 3 September 2020, stating “Student shows excellent knowledge of all areas agreed to in the Learning Contract”;
b. you signed off a learning contract for Person A regarding ‘12 Lead ECG’, dated 12 September 2020, stating ‘student has shown a substantial increase in knowledge thanks to regular exposure and frequent discussion of this subject’;
c. you signed off a learning contract for Person A regarding ‘assessment and treatment of paediatric patients’, dated 28 September 2020, stating that Person A has shown ‘significant improvement over placement’ and is ‘able to provide in-depth assessment without intervention from mentor’;
d. you signed off a learning contract for Person A regarding ‘preparation and administration of SC/ IM/ IV medication’, dated 28 September 2020, stating ‘student has shown over the placement that he is competent in all areas laid out in the learning and competencies we set out’;
e. you signed off a competency for needle cricothyroidotomy for Person A, dated 6 October 2020;
f. you signed off a competency for needle chest thoracentesis for Person A, dated 6 October 2020;
g. you signed off a competency for endo-tracheal intubation for Person A, dated 6 October 2020, and/or
h. you signed off Person A’s ‘End of Year – Named Paramedic Final Signoff Document’, dated 8 October 2020, providing an overall student performance rating of ‘Excellent’ and confirming Person A had met the HCPC standards of conduct, performance and ethics.
3. In or around August 2020, you accepted money from Person A as payment for signing off completion of their practice assessment portfolio.
4. On or around 08 April 2021, you denied the concerns raised at particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 to your employer.
5. Your conduct in relation to particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 was dishonest.
6. The matters set out in particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 above constitute misconduct.
7. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Hearing in Private
1. Ms March, appearing on behalf of the Registrant, made an application for the entire hearing to be conducted in private or at least those parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s private life and health should be in private. The HCPC did not oppose the application.
2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (“HCPTS”) Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private.” The Panel decided that the hearing should be held in public save for those matters relating to the private life and health of the Registrant in accordance with Rule 10(1) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) and that it was practical to do so. The Panel was satisfied that this was in the interests of justice and for the protection of the private life of the Registrant.
Background
3. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic who was employed by Central Medical Services (‘CMS’) between 2 April 2020 until 12 October 2021.
4. A panel on 6 May 2025 found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a Suspension Order for 12 months. This is a review hearing of the Suspension Order which expires on 10 June 2026.
5. In December 2025 the Registrant started a new role as an Ambulance Care Assistant (“ACA”) with a private ambulance company, Health Transport Group (“HTG”). ACAs are primarily employed in a non-emergency Patient Transport Service role. He undertakes routine journeys for patients being discharged from hospital, as well as inter-hospital transfers, and attending routine appointments.
Decision on Impairment
6. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and it exercised its own professional judgement in this regard. In undertaking this review the Panel considered all of the documentation before it, including the determination from the previous hearing where the panel identified that there was an ongoing risk to the public.
HCPC’s submission
7. Ms Khorassani submitted that the position of the HCPC was neutral. The Panel must first decide if there is a finding of current impairment to protect the public from any risk of harm (assessing the extent of that current or future risk), maintain public confidence in the profession, or to declare and uphold the proper standards of conduct or behaviour. This is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgement considering all the information before it.
8. Ms Khorassani submitted that the burden is on the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired and that the concerns which led to the original finding of impairment have now been overcome. The Panel was referred to the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) and the principle that it is for a registrant to fully acknowledge why past performance was deficient and demonstrate that they have, “through insight, application, education, supervision and other achievement … sufficiently addressed the past impairments”.
9. It is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired that the Panel should go on to consider sanction, by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel must have regard to the principle of proportionality, which requires that the Registrant’s interests be balanced against the interests of the public.
The Registrant’s submission
10. Ms March, on behalf of the Registrant, invited the Panel to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired and that the panel should consider, in particular, the extensive personal reflections of the Registrant, his personal statement, the character references and the steps he had taken in terms of improving his knowledge and skills since the Substantive Hearing of the Conduct and Competence Panel in May 2025 and the decision to impose a Suspension order for a period of 12 months.
11. Ms March invited the Panel to find that the Suspension Order should lapse to enable the Registrant to return to work as a Paramedic.
12. [REDACTED]
Evidence
13. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation and the Panel found him to be credible, honest and persuasive. The Registrant explained how he had reflected on his behaviour and the potential impact of his actions in terms of public safety. He was able to articulate how he would behave in future and his regret, remorse and insight were regarded as sincere. The Panel did not consider the Registrant liable to repeat his dishonesty and was impressed at the considered reflection he had provided and the steps he had taken in remediation.
14. [REDACTED]
15. [REDACTED]
16. [REDACTED]
Decision
17. In considering impairment the Panel took into account that the purpose of these proceedings is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had acted in a way that had brought the reputation of the profession into disrepute and could have potentially placed patients at risk of harm.
18. The Panel has taken into account all the evidence before it. The Panel recognises the insight of the Registrant into his wrongdoing and the steps he has taken to minimise the likelihood of any repetition. The Panel accepts that the Registrant is genuinely remorseful and has accepted his error in judgement while not trying to abrogate responsibility.
19. The Panel considered that the Registrant had shown clear insight into the circumstances which gave rise to the misconduct. He has conducted some detailed reflection during his period of suspension, established a support network, and was able to identify specific actions he would take to prevent such issues reoccurring. All of this satisfied the Panel that the Registrant had met his persuasive burden and had demonstrated that the original panel’s concerns had been addressed. In light of the concerns being addressed, the Panel was satisfied that it was highly unlikely the Registrant’s misconduct would be repeated. On that basis it found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired on the personal component.
20. In respect of the public component, the Panel considered that a finding of impairment was previously found to be necessary to address the Registrant’s dishonesty, betrayal of public trust, and the need to reaffirm clear standards of professional conduct. The Panel considered that in suspending the Registrant for twelve months, the regulator has made clear to the public that the Registrant’s actions were unacceptable, would not be tolerated, and that the Registrant would not be permitted to return to practice until those concerns had been addressed. As the concerns have been addressed, and the public reassured by a twelve-month suspension order, there is no longer any need for a finding of impairment in the wider public interest.
21. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is not impaired. In all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that patient safety would not be compromised, nor would confidence in the profession be undermined if the Registrant were to practise without restrictions on registration.
Legal Assessor’s Advice
20. 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’.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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...”.
26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had, amongst other things, reminded it that the purpose of the review is to consider the issue of current impairment of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the following:
• the Panel could have regard to a number of factors when reviewing the Order; namely, the previous panels’ findings, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of insight, and the risk of repetition;
• the Panel could take account of a range of issues when considering current impairment, which in essence comprises two components:
a) the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant; and
b) the ‘public’ component: the need the protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain public confidence in the profession.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to allow the current Suspension Order against the registration of Mr Shane Williams to lapse upon its expiry, namely 10 June 2026.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Shane Williams
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19/05/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | No further action |
| 06/05/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |