Jason Smith

Preliminary Matters

Privacy Application

1.        During the evidence of the Registrant issues relating to his private life were mentioned. Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to hear such matters in private.

2.          The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be heard in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, in certain circumstances it may be in the interests of justice for the hearing to take place wholly or partially in private.

3.        The Panel considered the representations made and determined that it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard partly in private to protect the private life of the parties where such matters were referred to, as personal matters should not be in the public domain.

Application to amend the Allegation

4.          At the conclusion of the evidence for the HCPC, Mr Brahimi applied to the Panel to amend the Allegation. Mr Brahimi relied on his skeleton argument, dated 22 September 2026, in submitting that the amendments were required to better particularise the Allegation. 

5.          Mr Brahimi sought to amend Particular 2a to add the words ‘or accepted’ to cover the exchange of messages with Person A which ensued. It was submitted that it was the fact of becoming Facebook friends which was inappropriate in the context of professional boundaries and public protection.

6.          Mr Brahimi sought to broaden the date range during which the incidents in Particular 2 are said to have occurred. It was submitted that the dates 01 February 2023 to 20 February 2023 capture the evidence and there was no change to any factual accusation. Mr Brahimi referred to the witness evidence in submitting that while there were some discrepancies on dates, there was no difficulty in confirming that this was conduct within February 2023.

7.          The Registrant did not oppose the proposed amendments to the Allegation, indicating that he had always maintained that he did not send the friend request.

8.          The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Case Management, Directions and Preliminary Hearings’.

9.        The Panel was aware that the HCPC rules are silent on amendments, but it is within its jurisdiction to consider such applications. The Panel considered whether any unfairness or prejudice would arise should it permit the amendment. The Panel carefully considered the submissions in relation to the proposed amendments, the evidence it had received, and the documents contained within the hearing bundle.
 
10.       The Panel noted that the Registrant was given notice of the proposed amendments, and no objection had been raised. The Panel considered the proposed amendments in two categories; the dates in Particular 2, and the Facebook friend request. 

11.       In considering the proposed amendment to the dates within Particular 2 the Panel acknowledged that the date range was contained within the written and oral evidence. The Panel was satisfied that the amendment proposed does not increase the seriousness of the case against the Registrant, and any potential for prejudice to him was outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the Allegation reflects the evidence.

12.       In considering the proposed amendment to the Particular regarding the Facebook friend request, the Panel noted that the Registrant had always maintained that he had not sent the friend request to Person A, and so it better reflects the evidence. 

13.       The Panel balanced public protection against fairness to the Registrant and was satisfied that the proposed amendment does not increase the seriousness of the case against him and can be dealt with appropriately as he has always acknowledged he sent messages to Person A. The Panel concluded that the proposed amendments could be made without any unfairness or injustice to the Registrant. The amendments better reflect the evidence, are sensible, easier to understand and make matters clearer for the Registrant and the Panel to understand. The nature of the case against the Registrant has not materially changed.

14.   Accordingly, the application to amend would be granted in its entirety.

Background

15.       The Registrant is a HCPC registered Paramedic.

16.       The Registrant commenced employment with the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) on 24 January 2010 as an emergency technician. On 07 July 2022, he began his role as a Paramedic.

17.       On 02 September 2022, an alleged incident occurred involving Person B. It is alleged that the Registrant attended the home address of Person B in his Paramedic uniform on his way home from work. It is said that he reported to Person B that he had taken her ex-partner to hospital during his shift following an overdose. 

18.       It is reported that the Registrant accepted attending Person B’s home, explaining that the patient had repeatedly expressed concern for his ex-partner stating that she would be worried if she could not get hold of him. The Registrant is said to have obtained Person B’s details from the patient.

19.       It is further alleged that the Registrant made contact with Person B through social media, sending messages via Facebook messenger. The Registrant was spoken to by his employer and reminded of the need to remain professional and respect professional boundaries. The Registrant was advised that Person B had been in an abusive relationship with the patient and had managed to remove herself from it.

20.       In February 2023, the Registrant and a colleague responded to a report of an intoxicated female in the park (Person A). It is alleged that the Registrant sent a Facebook friend request to Person A who was 15 years of age and sent her messages offering support to her.

21.       It is alleged that the Registrant breached professional boundaries in each situation.

22.       On 03 March 2023, SAS informed the Registrant of the internal investigation, and he was placed on alternative duties.

23.       On 07 March 2023, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC.

24.       On 12 September 2024, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a ‘case to answer’ in relation to the Allegation and the Notice of Allegation was sent to the Registrant on 20 September 2024.

25.       On 28 August 2026, in an email received from the SAS it was confirmed that the Registrant had resigned from his position as a Paramedic with the SAS and that his last day of employment would be on 02 October 2026. The Registrant’s last working day was 31 August 2026 as he used annual and parental leave to accommodate his absence from the SAS for the month of September 2026.
 
Evidence 

26.       The Panel reviewed the documentary evidence contained within the 228-page hearing bundle, and a case summary of 11 pages dated 14 September 2026. The Panel heard live evidence from CW, Area Services Manager with SAS, LD, the Lead Nurse of Child Protection, Detective Sergeant SH of the Divisional Child Abuse Investigation Team, and SK, Area Service Manager with SAS.

27.       CW gave evidence on affirmation, and her witness statement was admitted in evidence. CW confirmed that her role was to investigate the concerns raised against the Registrant. She advised that she had not been involved in the investigation of the complaint from September 2022 other than being advised of it as part of her investigation into the February 2023 matters concerning Person A. 

28.       CW described a process of dealing with service users, whereby, once the Paramedic had either discharged on scene or handed over the service user at hospital, the Paramedic would not be expected to have any further involvement with that service user and would move on to deal with another patient.

29.       CW stated that it would not be within the role of a Paramedic to attend the home address of an ex-partner of a patient. She stated that this would be overstepping the mark of professional boundaries.

30.       CW advised that Person A was 14 or 15 years of age at the time and was a ‘looked after’ child which meant that she was in the care of social services. It was confirmed that the Registrant had returned her home to her foster placement whilst on shift. There was no vulnerable person report completed, although CW stated that it was also not done on previous occasions either by other Paramedics. 

31.       CW stated that she was unable to ascertain who had sent the Facebook friend request as part of her investigation, but it would have had to have been accepted. She stated that the Registrant claimed that he had received the friend request and accepted it absent-mindedly. She stated that it was accepted by the Registrant that he had sent Person A messages which breaches the social media policy around contacting patients.

32.       CW stated that there would be no reason for the Registrant to contact a child after returning her home, and had there been a need, social media would not be the appropriate platform. CW stated that if there were concerns around the safety of a minor it should be reported through the appropriate channels.

33.       CW was taken through the messages which were sent to Person A and was invited to provide an opinion on the need to send such messages. It was acknowledged that it was her interpretation. She stated that it was not appropriate to share personal information with patients such as where you live, and it was not within the role of a Paramedic to check if a child patient is behaving.

34.       CW stated that the messages being persistent, unwanted and unwelcome were her findings from the investigation on the basis that the interactions were one way and were instigated by the Registrant. 

35.       Detective Sergeant SH gave evidence on affirmation, and his statement was admitted in evidence. SH explained the Inter-agency Referral Discussion (IRD) process as being a meeting held between the Police, health and social care services to share and discuss concerns relating to children.

36.       SH advised that he assessed the information he received relating to the Registrant and called an IRD meeting. SH stated that social care had raised a concern about a child in their care who had received messages from the Registrant who had previously been in attendance as a Paramedic when the child was intoxicated. SH stated that in his view the concerns merited an IRD discussion but ultimately it was determined that there had been no criminality and so SH on behalf of the Police took the matter no further. It was agreed that it was more appropriately dealt with by health.

37.       SH was taken through the messages which the Registrant had sent to Person A and gave a commentary on his interpretation of them. He indicated that although they seemed harmless, they may be grooming type behaviour which could develop. SH explained that as a professional who comes into contact with vulnerable people it would not be appropriate for him to make contact with a child he had met through his work outside of the workplace. He opined that the messages overstep the boundary of a Paramedic and patient relationship and that Person B was not interested in engaging due to her one word responses.

38.       SH advised that he was made aware of the interaction on 16 February 2023 and believed that the Registrant treated the child on 04 February 2023, he was unable to be sure and acknowledged that there was information to suggest the Registrant had treated Person A on 10 February 2023.

39.       SK gave evidence on oath, and her statement was admitted in evidence. In relation to the September 2022 incident SK advised that she had spoken to the complainant (Person B) who referred to messages being sent on Facebook, but she did not obtain copies of them. SK relayed what she was told by the complainant, stating that her understanding was that the Registrant had attended the address and shared information about a patient he’d taken to hospital earlier that day. 

40.       SK considered that this was a personal situation that paramedics should not get involved with. SK stated that she would expect a Paramedic to behave professionally and carry out the role as directed which would not include attending an address other than that of a patient.

41.       SK also stated that SAS do not authorise use of Facebook or WhatsApp by Paramedics.

42.       When asked about whether it would be appropriate had he permitted the patient to use his phone to send the messages, SK stated that it would not as there was no proof of who had sent the messages. SK indicated that the appropriate route would have been for hospital staff to notify any friends or relatives of the patients whereabouts.

43.       SK indicated that there was a risk to the complainant’s mental health and safety as she had referred to her ex-partner as being coercive and abusive. 

44.       SK was unable to confirm which date the Registrant had been called to attend to Person A, but she was aware that there was a discrepancy. She stated that when she was made aware of the second complaint, she referred it to her line manager, JS. She stated that she was concerned that after directing the Registrant to read the social media policy and gave him guidance that a second complaint was received.

45.       SK clarified that the complaint from Person B had come in as a ‘concern’ and she did not reply to the complaint or see the need to investigate further by obtaining the messages having spoken to the Registrant.

46.       SK indicated that she could not recall when she typed up her notes in SK01, and she did not offer them to the Registrant to sign, read or agree. SK described the Registrant as a kind and caring individual who had made an error of judgment acting in good faith.

47.       At the start of the third day of the hearing, witness LD was not in attendance when she had been requested to make herself available, and had not responded to her witness warning or a number of emails sent to her. Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC made an application to admit her evidence as hearsay. Mr Brahimi relied on his skeleton argument dated 22 September 2026 and highlighted the attempts the HCPC, and the Hearings Officer, had made to contact LD. It was submitted that the evidence of LD was reliable as she had made a signed a witness statement.

48.    The Registrant stated that he would be disadvantaged as he would not have the opportunity to ask questions to clarify the issue of who had sent the Facebook friend request.

49.    The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred itself to the Practice Note on ‘Evidence’ which outlined the factors it should consider in determining whether to admit hearsay evidence, and the weight it should attach to any hearsay evidence admitted.

50.       The Panel took account of the fact that the HCPC had obtained a witness statement from LD which was signed by her. LD was involved in the IRD process, which had been referred to by other witnesses. It was not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the issues. Additionally, there was no suggestion that the evidence of LD was not reliable.

51.       The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had sought to clarify with LD the issues around who had sent the Facebook friend request, and to that extent the Registrant would be disadvantaged.

52.       The Panel had no information as to why LD was not in attendance, other than the possibility that she would not be of assistance due to having changed employment as per her email from 23 April 2026. She had not responded to subsequent communications and had clearly disengaged with the process. The HCPC had not taken any additional steps to secure her attendance.

53.       In considering the overall fairness, the Panel determined that it would admit the statement of LM in evidence as hearsay. The weight which it attaches to that evidence will be considered when the Panel makes its findings of fact.

54.       The Panel heard evidence on affirmation from the Registrant. He stated that he had worked for SAS for 17 years, initially as an Ambulance Technician, and he subsequently qualified as a Paramedic. [redacted]

55.       In relation to Person B, the Registrant gave an account of waiting outside A&E with a patient in the ambulance after the patient had taken an overdose of a substantial quantity of paracetamol. The Registrant described a wait of at least a couple of hours as there were no beds in the hospital. The Registrant stated that the patient was tearful, stating that he wanted to let his partner know where he was as she would be worried about him if she could not get hold of him, and he did not have a phone. 

56.       The Registrant stated that he offered his phone to the patient to contact his partner while he went into the hospital for an update. When he returned, he was told by the patient that he had been unable to get hold of her. The Registrant described the patient as being very unwell, and upset and worried about dying. He stated that the patient was begging him to help.

57.       The Registrant stated that in hindsight he realises that it was wrong. He stated that the patient told him where his partner lived which was not far from where he lived and he went on the way home from work. The Registrant indicated that after getting the patient into the hospital he returned to the Ambulance Station before calling in at the partners address on his way home. He stated that it would have been less than a minute as he left his car engine running, he told her that her partner was in hospital due to an overdose and asked if she could make contact. He thought it was ok as the patient had given him permission to share those details.

58.       The Registrant stated that a couple of weeks later he received a phone call from SK while he was on duty and she advised him that a complaint had been received about him visiting the home address of the patient’s partner. He stated that there was no mention of phone calls or messages and he heard nothing more about it.

59.       The Registrant stated that he was acting in accordance with the patient’s wishes. In hindsight he recognises that he should have left it to the hospital to make contact with friends or relatives. He stated that it is his job to help people and he went out of his way to help and saw it as relaying a message.

60.       The Registrant referred to the incident involving Person A becoming intoxicated in the park, and an ambulance attending. He confirmed that he had attended with a female colleague and the young female was laid on the floor feigning being unconscious and playing up to the crowd. He stated that this was his first encounter of her. 

61.       The Registrant described taking the female onto the Ambulance and doing observations which were all fine, and she was walking and talking. He stated that Person A was playing up and refusing to provide them with her name, he tried to ascertain who she was by searching on Facebook to see how her name was spelled. The Registrant stated that he was thinking outside the box to avoid having to call the Police. He explained that once they had a name or date of birth they could search on the ambulance computer to see where she lived. When they could not find her on social media, he contacted the social care line who made some enquiries to identify the young patient. He stated that it took the social worker an hour to call them back, they indicated that the foster parents were happy to take the child home and they returned her home.

62.       The Registrant described seeing a Facebook friend request some time later, it ‘rang a bell’ and so he opened it and accepted it. He acknowledged that he now knows it is not the right thing to do. He described that there was a link as his [redacted] and Person A mix in the same circles.

63.       The Registrant stated that there was no sexual motive or predatory / grooming intent behind it. He stated that he had intended to convey that she was young and should stop getting herself in these states. He reiterated that the Police had found no criminality.

64.       The Registrant stated that [redacted] works in communications, and he looked at the phone and could see that the Registrant had not sent Person A a friend request. He stated that you could see his friend requests going back 15 years and he was disappointed that no one had looked into that. The Registrant suggested that when he had tried to identify Person A through Facebook on the night of the call out, that this may have triggered something on Person A’s phone to suggest that she might know him.

65.       The Registrant acknowledged that messaging Person A was not appropriate and he made a mistake.

66.       The Registrant described the impact of the investigation upon him and stated that he had written reflections and undertaken training. He also indicated that SAS had changed their policies, and mandatory training was given on social media use. He stated that now anyone under 16 years of age who had consumed alcohol would be taken to hospital. Additionally, Paramedics were now provided with work mobile phones with no access to social media. The Registrant described the changes and the learning as a positive thing.

67.       As the Registrant initially indicated that he was an Ambulance Technician when the September 2022 incident arose, enquiries were undertaken, following which it was accepted that he had been a registered Paramedic at the relevant time.

Decision on Facts

68.       The Panel heard submissions from Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC who invited the Panel to make findings in relation to the facts. Mr Brahimi referred to his Closing Submissions dated 24 September 2026 in asking the Panel to consider all of the written and oral evidence in the case to determine whether each particular of the Allegation was found proved or not.

69.       The Registrant made submissions to the Panel on the facts. 

70.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.

71.       The Panel was advised to look at each particular of the Allegation independently and in reaching its decision consider whether the facts set out in the Allegation are proved, assess the oral and written evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and attach such weight as they see fit to each piece of evidence.

72.       The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ and was advised that it should distinguish between contact which is inappropriate, and contact which is in breach of professional boundaries with reference to the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics or any workplace policy in place at the relevant time.

73.       The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that while documentation from a disciplinary hearing can be used in regulatory proceedings, it should be redacted so that no findings of fact are contained to prevent the potential for the Panel to be ‘tainted’ by a previous panel’s findings on the same issues that it is required to determine (Enemuwe v NMC [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin)). The Panel was reminded that it must reach its own conclusions on the evidence before it.

74.       The Panel found the evidence of CW, SH and SK to be clear and consistent. They all appeared professional and gave credible accounts which assisted the Panel in understanding the IRD process and why it was alleged that he had breached professional boundaries. All three witnesses gave an account as to what professional boundaries would be expected of a registered Paramedic.

75.       The Panel assessed the evidence of LD who was not present. The evidence of LD was consistent with other evidence the Panel had received, although the Panel attached less weight to it, as her absence deprived the Registrant and the Panel the opportunity to challenge the account.

76.       The Registrant gave his evidence in an extremely candid manner, accepting in a frank and open way when he had done something he shouldn’t have. The Registrant was not represented, and it was apparent that on occasion he was overwhelmed by the regulatory process. The Registrant was credible and honest, and he did not seek to diminish that what he had done was inappropriate. The Panel considered that this made his account more believable when he denied aspects of the Allegation. 

Particular 1a is found proved
‘1. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Person B, in that on or around 2 September 2022, you: 
a. visited Person B at their home address;’

77.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence of SK which included a number of exhibits. SK was involved in managing the Registrant at the time of the complaint from Person B in September 2022. The Panel noted from SK’s evidence that she had spoken with Person B on the telephone, and that the correspondence from Person B was dealt with as a ‘concern’ and did not require a formal written response from her. 

78.       The Panel took account of the fact that it had not been provided with the ‘Datix’ which referred to the concern, and that SK could not recall when she had written up the exhibit at ‘SK01’. SK confirmed in evidence that she had not sent the Registrant a copy of SK01 to confirm or agree its contents. 

79.       The Panel did not have sight of the ‘concern’ raised by Person B or of any evidence directly from Person B. The Panel attached limited weight to the evidence of CW where she referred to the September 2022 incident as she was not directly involved in the ‘concern’.

80.       The Panel noted that the Registrant had always admitted attending the home address of Person B. The Panel was satisfied on balance that the Registrant had visited Person B at their home address.

81.       The Panel next considered whether visiting Person B’s home address was in breach of professional boundaries expected of a HCPC registered Paramedic.

82.       The Panel took account of the evidence it had received from CW, SH and SK who all stated that it was not within the Registrant’s remit to attend the address of a friend or relative once he had finished dealing with a patient. CW gave an account of a Paramedic attending an incident, she stated that when the job was finished the Paramedic should move onto the next job. 

83.       The Panel referred itself to the Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ and considered the examples of boundary breaches referred to in paragraph 4. The Panel considered that attending an address of a friend or relative while not on duty may amount to ‘using confidential information about …carers … for purposes other than providing care to them’.

84.       The Panel considered the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics which were in place at the relevant time and noted Standard 1.7 states:-
‘You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional’.

85.       The Panel noted that the Registrant was not on duty when he attended Person B’s address, and it received evidence that it would be usual for the hospital to notify friends or relatives of a patient’s admission, not the Paramedic involved with their care. 

86.       The Panel did not consider that it was ‘professional’ to attend the home address of a friend or relative, and that it crossed a professional boundary. On balance the Panel found Particular 1a to be proved.

Particular 1b is found not proved
‘1. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Person B, in that on or around 2 September 2022, you:
b. sent Person B messages on Facebook Messenger’.

87.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence of SK which included a number of exhibits. SK was involved in managing the Registrant at the time of the concern raised by Person B in September 2022. The Panel noted from SK’s evidence that she had spoken with Person B on the telephone and reference was made to some messages being sent by the Registrant. The Panel did not have sight of the messages it is said were sent and did not receive direct evidence from Person B regarding them.

88.       The Panel noted that the Registrant denied sending any messages and denied knowledge of them being sent from his phone, although he acknowledged that he had left the patient alone with his phone. 

89.       The Panel reminded itself that it was for the HCPC to satisfy it on the balance of probabilities that the messages were sent. It had failed to discharge that burden as there was no evidence that the messages were sent, or that they were sent from the Registrant’s phone, or that he had in fact sent them 

90.       As the Panel was unable to find that the Registrant had sent Person B messages on Facebook messenger, it did not go on to consider whether this constituted a breach of professional boundaries.

Particular 2a is found proved
‘You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Person A, in that between 1 February and 20 February 2023: 
a. you sent or accepted Person A a friend request on Facebook messenger’.

91.       The Panel referred itself to the written and oral evidence it had received from CW, SH and SK. In particular it referred to exhibits SH01, SH02 and SH05 which were screenshots of messages between the Registrant and Person A.

92.       The witnesses CW, SH and SK gave an account of the Registrant being called to attend upon Person A on either the 04 February 2023 or 10 February 2023 when she was intoxicated in a park. The Registrant did not dispute that he had been involved with Person A in a professional capacity on a date in February 2023.

93.       All witnesses had sight of messages which the Registrant is said to have sent to Person A on various dates in February 2023. 

94.       The Panel noted from exhibit SH01 that the screenshots from Person A’s phone showed that she and the Registrant were ‘friends’ on Facebook. 

95.       The Panel did not have any direct evidence from Person A, and it did not have any technical data from Facebook or any other source to identify who had sent the friend request. The Panel heard evidence from CW that with Facebook one person sends the friend request which the other party ‘accepts’ for them to become “friends”. The Panel received information from CW that during her investigation she was unable to establish who had sent the friend request.

96.       The Registrant in evidence stated that he had accepted a friend request which he received from Person A, although it reminded itself that it was not for the Registrant to prove anything. 

97.       Having seen the screenshots within the exhibits, the Panel was satisfied on balance that the Registrant had either sent or received the Facebook friend request. The Panel preferred the evidence of the Registrant who had been candid, in determining that it was more probable than not that he had ‘accepted’ the friend request.

98.       The Panel went on to consider whether this breached appropriate professional boundaries. The Panel again referred itself to the Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ and considered that the act of becoming “friends” on Facebook may amount to ‘entering or attempting to enter into inappropriate personal relationships with service users… including… over social media’.

99.       The Panel also considered the conduct to be in breach of Standard 1.7 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 referred to above at paragraph 84.

100.   Additionally, the Panel noted Standard 2.7 which states:-
‘You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites’.

101.   The Panel received evidence that Person A was vulnerable due to her age, her status in Local Authority foster care, and her history of becoming intoxicated in the park. There was also a power imbalance between the Registrant and Person A who was younger, when the Registrant was in a position of trust over her. The relationship with Person A over social media was not required in the Registrant’s role as a Paramedic.

102.   On the balance of probabilities, the Panel concluded that it was not appropriate for a registered Paramedic to become “friends” with a vulnerable service user on Facebook and he had breached professional boundaries. 

Particular 2b is found proved
‘2. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Person A, in that between 1 February and 20 February 2023:
b. you sent Person A messages on Facebook messenger as set out in Schedule A.

103.   The Panel referred itself to the written and oral evidence it had received from CW, SH and SK. In particular, it referred to exhibits SH01 and SH02 which were screenshots of messages between the Registrant and Person A. The Panel could see from the screenshots that the Registrant had exchanged messages with Person A.

104.   The Registrant did not dispute that he sent the messages sent as set out in Schedule A and seen in exhibit SH01 and SH02. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence established on balance that the Registrant had sent Person A the messages set out in Schedule A 

105.   The Panel went on to consider whether this breached appropriate professional boundaries. The Panel considered exhibit CW07 which was the SAS Public Protection Policy (the Policy). The Policy defines a child as ‘a person 16 years and under’. The Policy clearly states :
‘If you have any concern about the immediate safety of any child you should contact the police immediately to request their attendance. On identifying a concern, the staff member must also phone the local councils child Protection team to ensure a formal record of referral is held’.
It further states:-
‘In the event that the child is a patient, then an electronic patient report must also be completed noting any concerns in the ‘safeguarding’ section of the form’.

106.   Additionally, under Standard 7 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 the Registrant was under a duty to report concerns about the safety of a service user promptly and appropriately.

107.   The Panel considered that if there were genuine concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable child there were other options available to the Registrant which he did not take. The messaging of a child on social media falls outside the scope of the role of a registered Paramedic and is an inappropriate means of communicating with any service user, let alone a vulnerable child who was known to the ambulance service.

108.   Further, the Panel did not consider that the content of the messages represented communication which was appropriate in the context of the relationship. It appeared to the Panel that person A did not know who the Registrant was by stating “Hello?”. The Registrant’s message suggested he knew where she lived which was inappropriate and the Registrant did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

109.   For all of the reasons set out above, the Panel considered that the messages represented an inappropriate means of communication with Person A which was not in accordance with the boundaries required of him as a registered Paramedic.

Particular 2c is found proved
‘2. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Person A, in that between 1 February and 20 February 2023:
c. On 19 February 2023, you sent Person A messages on Facebook messenger as set out in Schedule B’.

110.   The Panel referred itself to the written and oral evidence it had received from CW, SH and SK. In particular it referred to exhibit SH05 which were screenshots of messages between the Registrant and Person A. The Panel could see from the screenshots that the Registrant had exchanged messages with Person A.

111.   The Registrant did not dispute that he sent the messages sent as set out in Schedule B and seen in exhibit SH05. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence established on balance that the Registrant had sent Person A the messages set out in Schedule B. 

112.   For the reasons set out within paragraphs 105 – 107 above, the Panel did not consider it appropriate for a registered Paramedic to be engaged in messaging a vulnerable child over social media.

113.   The Panel did not consider the content of the messages to be appropriate in the context of the relationship - the age difference, the power imbalance, and the vulnerability of Person A. The Panel considered that it was not within the remit of a Paramedic to be subsequently checking with a service user that they were behaving. The communication could be said to breach Standard 2.7 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics referred to above.

114.   For all of the reasons set out above, the Panel considered that the messages represented an inappropriate means of communication with Person A which was not in accordance with the professional boundaries required and expected of him as a registered Paramedic.

Decision on Grounds

115.   The Panel next went on to consider whether or not the facts found proved amounted to the statutory ground alleged, misconduct, which is a matter of judgment for the Panel.

116.   The Panel heard submissions from Mr Brahimi on the ground of misconduct, he referred to the Case Summary dated 14 September 2026 in submitting that the Registrant’s conduct had breached the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016. 

117.   The Registrant had nothing to add on the issue of misconduct save to say that he thought he was being helpful at the time, and he did not seek to defend his actions. 

118.   The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was referred to Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 where the Privy Council defined “misconduct” as “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

119.   The Panel was also referred to Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC (Admin) and Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin).

120.   The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and Standards 2016 and found that the facts found proved amounted to breaches of the following standards: -

1.1 You must treat service users and carers as individuals respecting their privacy and dignity;

1.7  You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional;

2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites; 

3.2 You must refer a service user to another practitioner if the care, treatment or other services they need are beyond your scope of practice;

5.1 You must treat information about service users as confidential;

5.2 You must only disclose confidential information if:

– you have permission;

– the law allows this;

– it is in the service user’s best interests; or

– it is in the public interest, such as if it is necessary to protect public safety or prevent harm to other people.

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

121.   The Panel looked at each Particular to determine whether it amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to Particular 1a the Panel considered that visiting a member of the public at home whilst in uniform, and not on duty, to be serious. The Panel considered that the Registrant had abused his professional position by attending the address to convey information whilst in his Paramedic uniform. The Registrant trusted information he had been given by a patient who was in a seriously unwell condition to visit a female’s home address without being in possession of the full facts. 

122.   The public place trust in Paramedics to care for them, and the Registrant’s visit had the potential to cause harm, as there was information to suggest that Person B had been in an abusive relationship with the patient. The Panel considered the evidence from CW and SK who both commented that visiting a person’s home was not within the remit of a registered Paramedic and concluded that this conduct would bring the profession into disrepute.

123.   The Panel next looked at Particular 2a and was of the view that social media is not an appropriate way to communicate with any service user. Particularly where the service user was young and vulnerable.

124.   The Registrant was aware of the circumstances of Person A as he had attended upon her in a professional capacity. Accordingly, he would have known her age, her ‘looked after’ status, and the fact that she was a regular user of ambulance services due to intoxication. There was a clear power imbalance as the Registrant was in a position of trust as a Paramedic, there was significant age discrepancy, and Person A was a vulnerable child. The Panel have already found that the conduct breached professional boundaries.

125.   The Panel considered that the Registrant should not have accepted a friend request, and that if he had genuine concerns for Person A, he should have referred them to social services. The conduct fell short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what would be expected of a registered Paramedic. The Panel considered that fellow professionals would consider it to be ‘deplorable’. 

126.   The Panel next looked at Particulars 2b and 2c together as they both involved the messages sent to Person A. The Panel found that the messages were inappropriate and had breached professional boundaries. The content of the messages suggested that the Registrant had to identify himself to Person A, and that she may not have been aware of who he was. When Person A expressed that she was okay the messages persisted and restarted a few days later, initiated by the Registrant. The Registrant advised that he knew where Person A lived and that she had been involved in further callouts with SAS. The Panel found such communications to be inappropriate and may be considered intimidating by a young female who was vulnerable. 

127.   It was not within the remit of the Registrant as a Paramedic who had treated Person A to check whether she was behaving. The limited responses from Person A suggest a level of disengagement by her.

128.   The Panel concluded that the conduct within these Particulars individually and collectively amounted to serious professional misconduct and would be considered ‘deplorable’ by fellow practitioners.

129.   The Panel considered the findings to be serious involving the Registrant engaging with service users and their friends or relatives away from the workplace, when there was a power imbalance, and evidence of vulnerability. The conduct had the potential to cause harm, was inappropriate and unprofessional, and crossed professional boundaries. 

130.   To conclude, the Panel was of the view that the breaches of Standards and findings of fact collectively establish that the Registrant acted in such a way that his conduct fell short of what would be proper in the circumstances, and what the public would expect of a HCPC registered Paramedic. Additionally, fellow professionals would find the conduct ‘deplorable’. The Panel determined that the facts found proved did amount to serious professional misconduct on the Registrant’s part.

Decision on Impairment  

131.   The Panel heard submissions from Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC on the issue of impairment with reference to the Case Summary dated 14 September 2026, and his addendum submissions on impairment dated 28 September 2026.

132.   Mr Brahimi submitted that professional boundary breaches are remediable but there had been little evidence of remediation, via specific training, to mitigate the risk of any repetition. 

133.   Mr Brahimi invited the Panel to consider that the misconduct found proven was so serious that finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired would undermine both public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

134.   The Panel heard submissions from the Registrant and considered his bundle of documents of 13 pages. The Registrant stated that due to leaving SAS he did not have access to his written reflections provided to his line manager or details of the training courses he had undertaken.

135.   The Registrant stated that he had regained the trust he may have lost and had been working as a single crew Paramedic on a rapid response unit. He described the embarrassment and hurt he had experienced, and acknowledged an impact on those involved.

136.   The Panel received and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public components and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired at the current time.

137.   The Panel considered the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) which adopted and clarified the test for impairment of fitness to practise, which was formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry with reference to the following questions:-
a. Has the Registrant acted in the past (or is liable to act in the future) in a way that puts patients at unwarranted risk of harm.

b. Has the Registrant brought (or is liable to bring) the profession into disrepute.

c. Has the Registrant breached (or is liable to breach) one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

d.  Has the Registrant acted dishonestly.

138.   The Panel considered that limbs a, b and c were engaged in this case. There was a clear risk of harm being caused to vulnerable people. 

139.   In relation to Person A, making contact with a vulnerable child through social media is outside the scope of practise of a Paramedic, and could result in members of the public being less likely to trust in the profession and engage the services of a Paramedic when required. Due to the vulnerability of the child, she may become less trusting of the professional adults in her life who were there to protect her.

140.   In relation to Person B, the Registrant attended the home address of a female on her own, whose sensitivity may have been higher due to being in an abusive relationship. The Registrant attended the address without a full awareness of the female’s personal circumstances, which had the potential to cause her psychological and emotional harm.  

141.   The Panel found that the Registrant’s actions had brought the profession into disrepute, by engaging with a vulnerable young female service user through social media and attending the home address of a female whilst in uniform. The Registrant is under a duty to protect the public and manage the risks of harm in situations he is exposed to. The Registrant has acted outside the scope of his practice, his conduct fell below the standards expected of a registered Paramedic and he has brought the profession into disrepute.

142.   The Panel found that the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession, to promote and protect the interests of service users, to communicate effectively, and to respect confidentiality. The Registrant failed to demonstrate professional behaviour, has breached professional boundaries and has acted outside the remit of his role as a Paramedic. The Panel concluded that he did not act in accordance with the requirements to be trustworthy and reliable, and to act with decency and integrity.

143.   The Panel considered the factors affecting the seriousness of the concerns. The Panel reminded itself of the reasons why it had found the facts proven and was of the view that: -

·       There were a number of breaches of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, representing a significant departure from the standards expected of a registered Paramedic, and the impact on public confidence in the profession had been undermined;
·       The failings were repeated, affecting two females, and there was a risk of psychological and emotional harm associated with the breaches of professional boundaries. The conduct may mean that service users are less likely to seek help when required;
·       The conduct involved vulnerable people. The Registrant was clearly aware of Person A’s vulnerability due to attending upon her in a professional capacity when she was intoxicated. Whilst the Registrant was not aware of Person B’s vulnerability at the time, he did not take sufficient care, or act with diligence, to ensure he obtained the facts before he acted;
·       The Registrant abused his professional position. By contacting Person A via social media, alluding to his role as a Paramedic, when there was a clear power imbalance.  In relation to Person B, he attended the address of a lone female whilst in his Paramedic uniform and imparted information regarding a patient. Person B was so concerned by the visit that she raised it in writing to the local health board;
·       The Panel noted that there was no criminal behaviour found to have occurred in relation to the Registrant’s contact via social media with Person A, however, the Registrant failed to acknowledge that his actions may have been perceived as predatory;
·       The Registrant reflected and remediated and demonstrated some insight into his actions. However, the Panel found the remediation to be incomplete, and the insight not fully developed - the Panel could not rule out the risk of repetition.

144.   In considering the personal component the Panel considered the principles set out by Mr Justice Silber in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin):-

a. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable? 

b. has the registrant taken remedial action? 

c. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?

145.   The Panel considered the failings to be remediable. The Panel referred itself to the bundle of documents provided by the Registrant and was of the view that the remediation was lacking. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant now appeared to have a better understanding of why what occurred was wrong, his updated reflection makes no reference to the impact of his actions on Person B, or that, regardless of who sent the friend request, that it was wrong to become “friends” with a vulnerable, young female service user on social media, and initiate a conversation alluding to her personal circumstances. 

146.   The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had undertaken some learning through Continuing Professional Development (CPD), however, there was no evidence of training on professional boundaries, professional communication, confidentiality, social media use, or working within the scope of his practice. 

147.   The Panel credited the Registrant for his openness throughout the hearing and his partial admissions that his conduct fell below the standards expected. However, the Panel noted that the conduct had occurred on two occasions, representing a pattern of behaviour. The Panel had no evidence that the Registrant understood the impact of his actions on those affected. The Panel considered the remediation to be incomplete as the depth of understanding was not present, accordingly, it did not consider the remediation to sufficiently mitigate the risk of repetition.

148.   The Panel was concerned that there was limited understanding by the Registrant of the seriousness of the situation, or how the conduct would impact public confidence in the profession, or how it might be perceived by the people involved or by colleagues. Additionally, the Panel had no information to suggest that the Registrant’s learning had informed his practise, such that the conduct would not be repeated should he face similar situations in future.

149.   The Panel noted the Registrant’s submission that due to him no longer being employed by SAS, he was unable to obtain his prior written reflections, and evidence of CPD. However, it considered that, in the knowledge that this hearing was occurring, the Registrant could have obtained those documents prior to the hearing and prior to leaving SAS.

150.   The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight was inward looking and he had failed to adequately demonstrate insight into the impact of his actions on the persons affected by them, his colleagues, the reputation of the profession, or the wider public. The Panel concluded that it could not rule out the risk of repetition at this time due to the lack of fully developed insight, the absence of full reflections or sufficient evidence of remediation.

151.   The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public, and the conduct had the potential to cause harm. The Panel’s duty is to protect the public from harm and the risk of harm.  

152.   The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired. 

153.   The Panel next went on to consider the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues’. The public is entitled to expect that registrants act in the best interests of service users, with decency, honesty and integrity.

154.   Due to the lack of evidence that the Registrant has fully developed insight and remediation, there is a risk of future repetition which would place the public, colleagues and service users at a risk of harm from the Registrant.

155.   The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct had breached professional standards, and a number of Standards were identified at paragraph 120. Whilst the Registrant had demonstrated some awareness of where he has fallen short, he has failed to meet the standard expected of him by the public in his role as a registered Paramedic.

156.   The misconduct found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

157.   The Panel reminded itself that the conduct found proved involved working outside the scope of his practice, concerned vulnerable people, confidentiality, breaching professional boundaries where there was a power imbalance, and communication concerns.

158.   The Panel found that the misconduct was so serious that the public interest demanded a finding of impairment. The Panel found that the Registrant had breached a number of Standards and had failed to act in accordance with fundamental tenets of the profession, which brings the profession into disrepute. The regulatory process is in place to ensure professional standards are maintained and to ensure that the public has confidence in those who treat them.

159.   The Panel was satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

160.   The Panel found the Registrant to be currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

161.   Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC made representations on sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and his written submissions dated 28 September 2026. He confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction and left this as a matter of judgement for the Panel.

162.   The Registrant made representations to the Panel outlining that he had undertaken work with his manager over the last three years to gain a better understanding of professional boundaries and the impact of his actions on those affected. He stated that there was no malice or predatory intent behind his actions and he would be alarmed and disgusted if it had happened with his daughter.

163.   The Registrant highlighted that there had been no new issues, and he stated he now understands that the people involved might have been scared or fearful. He stated that at the time he thought he was being helpful and he had offered to write letters of apology, but his manager didn’t think it would be a good idea. The Registrant stated that after two months of being taken off frontline duties, SAS trusted him to return to practise, and he has been meeting with his manager on a one-to-one basis since, undertaking regular reflections. The Registrant stated that he had learned about the implications of his actions and could see what the public might see.

164.   The Registrant stated that he had worked hard to obtain his registration and would like to keep it [redacted]. He stated that he would be open to further training and monitoring and had improved his practise as a result of his learning. He described that workplace policies had changed, and that he had changed how he deals with similar situations now.

165.   The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy dated 02 March 2026 and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of any sanction is to protect the public and that it should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

166.   The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction. Although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed, if required, to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. 

167.   The Panel was aware that if a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in ascending order of gravity. The Panel also acknowledged that it must be satisfied that the sanction is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

168.   The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. 

169.   The Panel was made aware that the Registrant had been the subject of an interim order since May 2023. There was an interim conditions of practice order in place until June 2026 when it was suggested the Registrant had breached the conditions;  the reviewing panel replaced the order with an interim suspension order. The Panel took account of the fact that any alleged breach was not yet proven.

170.   The Panel referred itself to the factors affecting seriousness and considered the findings were particularly serious due to the following factors:- 
·       Conduct which represents a serious breach of professional boundaries;
·       Abuse of professional position, involving vulnerable people.

171.   The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s culpability in relation to the Particulars found proven. It did not consider that the Registrant had acted intentionally and did not intend to cause harm. The Registrant was appalled at the prospect of being labelled a paedophile. The Panel considered that the Registrant was naïve and behaved recklessly in trying to do the right thing without thinking about the consequences.

172.   The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-
·       The Registrant had demonstrated some insight into his conduct, although it balanced this against the fact that the insight was limited and inward looking;
·       The Registrant expressed remorse for his actions, and expressed a wish to apologise for his actions;
·       The Registrant has undertaken some remediation, but this is incomplete and has not addressed professional boundary breaches.

173.   The Panel noted that there were no previous fitness to practise issues reported, and there had been no repeat of the conduct in three and a half years. The Panel also recognised the Registrant’s engagement, openness and candour during the regulatory hearing. 

174.   The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-
·       Breach of trust – the public places a high level of trust in professionals in uniform and the Registrant’s actions displaced that trust, particularly as the conduct involved vulnerable people;
·       There was a repetition of the behaviour over a few months affecting two individuals;
·       There was the potential for psychological / emotional harm to be caused;
·       The conduct involved breaches of professional boundaries.

175.   The relationship between a Paramedic and members of the public is based on trust, confidence and professionalism where there is an unequal balance of power in favour of the Registrant due to the vulnerability of those using or needing their services. Whilst Registrants should endeavour to have positive relationships, it is essential that they remain aware of the professional dynamic and take care not to abuse their position.

176.   The Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics require registrants to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust in them and their profession. This means being honest and trustworthy and acting in the best interests of service users, as well as ensuring that their relationships remain professional. Where a registrant is found to have abused their professional status, this is highly likely to reduce the public’s trust in them and their profession.

177.   The Panel found the Allegation to be serious and was concerned by the limited insight, remediation and reflection demonstrated despite the Registrant being subject to an interim order for three years. It concluded that there remained a risk of repetition which could result in harm.

178.   In light of the above, the Panel did not feel that this matter could be concluded with either no order or a caution. It did not consider these to be appropriate or adequate sanctions due to the serious nature of the Allegation, and the requirement to protect the public from harm and ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained. 

179.   The Panel considered that this case did not reflect the situations set out in paragraph 147 of the Sanctions Policy of when a caution order might be an appropriate sanction. It concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address the limited insight and remediation demonstrated, and to reflect that the failings were not minor in nature.

180.   The Panel next considered a conditions of practice order. Due to the lack of developed insight, or remediation and the concerns not being clinical in nature, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be workable. Nor did it consider that a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to address the attitudinal nature of the Allegation or adequately address the public interest concerns.

181.   Further, the Panel considered paragraph 155 of the Sanctions Policy which states, ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving…a serious breach of professional boundaries, abuse of professional position… involving a vulnerable person;

182.   The Panel noted that the Registrant had been subject to an interim conditions of practice order for around three years and had still failed to demonstrate the in-depth insight it would have expected at this stage. The Panel considered that the Registrant had failed to address the concerns in a meaningful way, and had only expressed a limited understanding of the impact of the conduct on Person A and Person B.

183.   The Panel could not be satisfied that it could formulate workable conditions which would sufficiently mitigate the risk of harm which would be brought about should the conduct be repeated. The Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had the depth of understanding to mitigate the risk of repetition. Whilst the Registrant has stated that he has made changes to his practise he has failed to explain what these changes are or provide any case studies of similar situations where he has acted differently. 

184.   The Panel noted that the Registrant was not currently in employment as a registered Paramedic and determined that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate or workable and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator. The Panel considered that the Registrant may not be appropriately managed or supervised in the workplace, and that he posed a risk of harm which could not adequately be managed with conditions of practice.

185.   The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where:-
·       ‘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 particularly in cases where the registrant has demonstrated they have begun to do so…’.

186.   The Registrant had provided some evidence of developing insight into the conduct which led to the finding of impairment. The Panel was persuaded that the Registrant was motivated to address the issues which led to the finding of impairment. 

187.   The Panel considered that the engagement of the Registrant in the hearing and the information which he gave had persuaded it that a Suspension Order was the most proportionate order. There were no concerns of a clinical nature in relation to the Registrant’s clinical practice, and he expressed a desire to remain in the profession.

188.   There was some evidence provided to the Panel during the hearing that the Registrant may be able to resolve or remedy the failings to reduce the risk of repetition. The Panel found that there had been a serious breach of professional standards and boundaries, and while the Registrant has expressed some remorse and insight into his behaviour, this was not fully developed at this time.

189.   The Panel considered that a Suspension Order of 6 months was the most appropriate and proportionate order to enable the Registrant to further develop insight, reflect and prepare himself for a return to practice following a period of time away from the profession. The time will give the Registrant the opportunity to look at what has occurred and why, and to gather evidence to convince a reviewing panel that his fitness to practice is no longer impaired. This period will also mark the seriousness of the Allegation.

190.   The Suspension Order will allow the Registrant time to reflect on his behaviours and provide him with an opportunity to remediate and further engage in the regulatory process to ensure that there is no risk of repetition. The Panel considered that the Registrant had failed to acknowledge the impact of his actions on Person B and that he should utilise the time to reflect on this, including her potential vulnerability and acting within the scope of his practice.  

191.   The Panel did consider a Striking Off order but decided that this would be disproportionate when a Suspension Order would be sufficient to protect the public and mark the public interest in this case. The public would lose the service of a competent Paramedic and Striking Off orders should be reserved for the most serious cases where the conduct is incompatible with continued registration.

192.   The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. The Panel considered that a future panel reviewing this order may be assisted by:

a)    The Registrant engaging and attending the review hearing;

b)    The Registrant providing a detailed reflective piece considering the Panel’s findings, the seriousness of the conduct, its impact on those involved as well as the wider public, to ensure that the conduct will not be repeated;

c)     Case studies detailing situations where the Registrant has dealt with vulnerable service users and what he did differently to ensure their safety, respecting professional boundaries; 

d)    A written piece of what the Registrant has done to understand and meet the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics;

e)    Testimonials from senior colleagues / managers; and 

f)      CPD focussing on professional behaviour and boundaries, and social media use, and a reflection on what he learned from this training and how he will apply this in his future practice.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Jason Smith for a period of 6 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

This Order will come into effect on 27 October 2026 and will expire 27 April 2027, if no appeal is made.

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr Brahimi on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month Interim Suspension Order on the Registrant’s registration. He submitted that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. 
The Registrant did not make any representations or submissions to the Panel.

Decision

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. The Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an Interim Order application. 

4. The Panel was mindful that once it reaches a final decision in respect of the substantive allegation any pre-existing interim order terminates. This would mean that the Registrant would not be subject to any practice restrictions unless an interim order is imposed, as a sanction order does not come into effect until either the expiry of the appeal period, or if there is an appeal, the determination of that appeal.

5. The Panel was aware that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an interim order, particularly when the Panel has made a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

6. The Panel paid careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’, which offers guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. 

7. The Panel recognised that its power to impose an interim order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Suspension Order has been imposed. 

8.The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings and the public interest concerns if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction. The Panel considered that in light of its findings it would be perverse not to impose an interim restriction on the Registrant’s practise.

9. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order, with immediate effect, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary for protection of the public and was in the public interest to maintain confidence in this regulatory process. 

10. The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.

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

History of Hearings for Jason Smith

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
21/09/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended