Mr Brian R Brooker

Background

14. The Registrant is, and was at all material times, registered as a Paramedic with the HCPC.

15. This case concerns the Registrant’s alleged behaviour towards his former partner (Person 1) and her daughter, with a different partner, (Person 2), between 2013 and 2018.

16. Person 1, a qualified midwife, first met the Registrant around 2004/5, in a professional capacity and for a time they worked together. Their professional relationship progressed into a romantic relationship towards the end of 2005/6.

17. Person 1 said that at the beginning of their relationship everything was fine, but that over time the Registrant became both verbally and physically abusive towards her. She said that intermittently since 2008/9, the Registrant had punched her and slapped her, mainly to her face and also pushed her, generally during heated arguments they had about his behaviour. Person 1 said that this physical abuse resulted in bruises to her face, arms and ribs and on one occasion she received a cut to her chin from one of the Registrant’s rings, when he punched her. She said that during the last two or three years that they were together the physical assaults were happening on a weekly basis, right up until she reported him to the police on 4 January 2018.

18. Person 1 said that on 4 January 2018, she and the Registrant had a row about the Registrant’s online dating. She had also been made aware of mobile phone contracts taken out in her name without her knowledge and given to the Registrant’s children from a previous relationship. She said she found this out as she received default letters from the mobile phone providers. When she confronted the Registrant about this, he is alleged to have become extremely agitated and said to her ‘shut your fucking mouth or I will shut it for you.’ Person 1 said she could remember turning around to pick up the letters when the Registrant punched her in the back of the head. She said the force of the punch nearly knocked her down, but she was able to grab a countertop to steady herself. The Registrant is said to have then stormed out.

19. Person 1 said she decided to report this assault to the police as it was witnessed by her daughter (Person 2). She said she had not reported matters to the police before then because ‘stupidly’ she thought she could deal with it.

20. Person 1 said that whilst at the police station she broke down whilst sitting with Person 2 and Person 2 told her that the same had happened to her and that the Registrant had been physically and sexually abusive towards her. Person 1 had previously been unaware of this.

21. Person 2 said she first met the Registrant when she was around 7 or 8 years old when her mother employed him. She said that the Registrant moved in with them when she was about 10 years old. The first year was fine, but thereafter, Person 2 said, things got progressively worse. Initially Person 2 thought the Registrant was a good father figure, although she could remember occasions when he would be ‘playful’ in the sense of squeezing her knee or tickling her, but he would actually hurt her. This was done in plain sight of the rest of the family (her mother and three siblings) but downplayed because at the time ‘we were none the wiser about his behaviour.’

22. Person 2 went on to say:

‘The abuse started when I was around 9 or 10 years old. At this time, I remember the abuse being incredibly low-key (whilst in plain sight) so it was conflicting as a young girl. If Mr Brooker was being playful with me, I questioned why it did not feel playful to me and why did it hurt. My feelings were downplayed and I was told off a lot of the time for overreacting when he would squeeze my arm, leg and wrist or even hit me ‘playfully’. I did not understand what was going on because I assumed we were getting along just fine but why was he hurting me and why no one else could see what was going on right in front of them. I started feeling like it was my fault as I was being told off or told to stop being miserable when these events happened. I started to feel depressed from a young age and experienced issues with self-image as I blamed myself for everything that went wrong.’

23. Person 2 referred to an occasion in 2007/2008, she could not be precise, when her mother and the Registrant were arguing, and she saw the Registrant hit her mother. She said the Registrant spotted her and, after Person 1 had gone outside to get away from him, the Registrant grabbed her (Person 2) by her neck and said that if she told anyone what she had seen he would hurt her. Person 2 said she was terrified and did not report this incident to anyone.

24. Person 2 said she spent a lot of time in her bedroom to avoid the Registrant and could recall many occasions when he would verbally abuse her mother. She said she did not say anything as the Registrant is a large man and ‘He was incredibly threatening to me as a child and it was scary because I could not do anything.’

25. Person 2 described another occasion, when she about 18, when she saw the Registrant slap and push her mother. She said it was horrible to see her mother treated this way and she remembered seeing marks on her mother.

26. Person 2 said that, in January 2018, she went with her mother to the police, and she broke down and told her mother about physical and sexual abuse that she had suffered at the hands of the Registrant. Person 1’s account was video recorded by the police.

27. In her statement for these proceedings, Person 2 said:

‘I had never told anyone about the sexual abuse I experienced from Mr Brooker to anyone before then. I was genuinely terrified of breaking up the family. I was not worried that Person 1 would not believe me but I was scared of what would happen. I have always been scared of change so I thought if I could just stick it out and suffer or put up with it, I would not have to deal with talking about what happened to sort it out.’

28. Person 2 said the sexual abuse started when she was around 13 years old and the longest it went on was for about a month when everyone else was out of the house. She said this would consist of being touched in intimate areas by the Registrant and her being forced to touch him. She said this would take place in the bedroom he shared with her mother and on a few occasions in the living room.

29. In her statement, Person 2 said that when she was around 15 years old she saw the Registrant masturbating whilst watching a television programme called ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’. This is an American documentary series that shows young children in America preparing for, and competing in, beauty pageants. She said she witnessed this on more than 10 occasions. She said this made her feel ‘sick’ and ‘incredibly scared’ as they were the only two people in the house and she felt there was nowhere safe she could go.

30. When speaking of the long-term effects of the Registrant’s alleged behaviour towards her, Person 2 said:

‘I do not know if I will ever feel normal again. I am 25 years old and in my first ever romantic relationship. I still struggle with trust even though my partner has never given me any reason not to trust him. I always think someone is out to get to me. There was a time in my life where I had nightmares about Mr Brooker coming to get me. I am conscious about self-image and when I was growing up I did embarrassing/stupid things on the internet because I did not value myself. I wish I could take these things back. There are things I have seen and gone through that I wish I never had. I saw inappropriate material on Mr Brooker’s devices as a child that I wish I had not. I have lots of social anxiety and stress. I struggle with constructive criticism because it feels like a personal attack. If someone tries to help me, I think I am doing something wrong.’

31. In a second statement Person 2 added that she subsequently suffered from major mental health problems and on several occasion took overdoses in an attempt to take her own life, resulting in visits to hospital.

32. On 5 January 2018 the Registrant was arrested and interviewed, following the report by Person 1 of domestic abuse and the reported sexual abuse of Person 2. He was subsequently bailed pending further enquiries. The Panel was not provided with a copy of the police interview but it is apparent that he denied all the matters, given the decision later taken by the police to take no further action.

33. On 14 April 2019, Person 1 sent a letter to the HCPC regarding the Registrant's behaviour.

34. On 12 May 2019 the police decided to take no further action against the Registrant, on the basis that it was ‘one word against the other with no supporting evidence.’

35. On 31 August 2023, Capsticks solicitors contacted Person 3, a Detective Constable at Surrey Police in the Child Abuse Team. Person 3 was informed that Capsticks were investigating the Registrant about allegations related to historical sexual abuse and physical abuse.

36. Person 3 confirmed that the Registrant was interviewed in relation to allegations of sexual touching against Person 2 and actual bodily harm against Person 1. No interview transcripts were created. Person 3 confirmed that the Registrant was no longer under police investigation.

37. Person 1 provided a statement to the police, dated 4 January 2018, and this was provided to the Panel. Person 2 completed an Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) video interview, on or around 12 January 2018, and a transcript of the interview was provided to the Panel.

38. The only correspondence from the Registrant, provided to the Panel, was the email dated 17 July 2023, referred to above.

Decision on Facts

39. In reaching its decisions on the facts, the Panel took into account the evidence provided by the witnesses called by the HCPC and all the documentary evidence. The Panel also took into account the submissions made by Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant was not present and had not provided any written representations for the Panel to consider. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and bore in mind that it was for the HCPC to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It was not for the Registrant to disprove the allegations.

40. In reaching its decisions, the Panel took into account the Registrant having denied the matters alleged when interviewed by the police. However, since the Registrant had not attended, and therefore not confirmed his position, and since his denials had not been tested on oath or affirmation, the Panel gave this less weight than the accounts given by Persons 1 and 2, who attended the hearing and gave oral evidence on affirmation.

41. In her oral evidence, Person 1 confirmed the content of her statements were true to the best of her knowledge and belief. She went on to answer supplementary questions from Ms Bass and some questions of clarification from the Panel. When the fact that the Registrant had denied committing any offences was put to her, Person 1 said, ‘It does not surprise me, since I have known the level of deception he has shown in other areas of his life, it does not surprise me.’

42. In her oral evidence, Person 2 confirmed the content of her statements and police ABE interview were true to the best of her knowledge and belief. She went on to answer supplementary questions from Ms Bass and some questions of clarification from the Panel. When the fact that the Registrant had denied committing any offences was put to her, Person 2 said, ‘I am not surprised, he has never taken accountability for anything he has done.’

Particular 1-found proved

1. On one or more occasions between around 2008 and 2018 you:
   a. Pushed Person 1;
   b. Slapped Person 1;
   c. Punched Person 1.

43. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Person 1, as supported to some extent by Person 2. Person 1 said in her witness statement, ‘intermittently since 2008/2009, Mr Brooker was physically and verbally abusive towards me. Mr Brooker would punch, slap and push me …the last attack taking place on 4 January 2018.’ In her witness statement given to the police, dated 4 January 2018, Person 1 said, ‘When Brian and I moved into … the arguments started. Minor skirmishes. Pushing or punching me ... we had a big fight. He punched me to my face causing a bruise.’ She went on to say, ‘Over the course of our relationship Brian has slapped my arm or face about five or six different times but not leaving bruises.’

44. In her oral evidence, Person 1 clarified that the Registrant slapped or punched her regularly towards the end of their relationship in 2018, which left bruises on some occasions but not others.

45. Person 2 explained in her witness statement that she ‘witnessed him hit her …’ and ‘I saw Mr Brooker slap and push Person 1 around at home.’ She added, ‘Sometimes I would see marks on her and would have suspicions on how these marks appeared. The marks were mainly on her face, her cheekbone … I recall seeing marks on her shoulder and presumed it was where his rings had dug into her shoulder as he grabbed her.’

46. In her oral evidence, Person 2 recalled two occasions where she actually witnessed the Registrant assaulting Person 1.

47. The account Person 1 gave on affirmation was consistent with the accounts she had provided to the police and in her statements to the HCPC. The Panel was cognisant of the fact that Person 1 was giving evidence about historical behaviour that was said to have taken place many years ago. However, it found her to be a credible witness and saw no reason to disbelieve her. In her oral evidence she was open and honest and accepted when she could not recall details due to the passage of time. The Panel considered her to be a straightforward witness, who spoke in a matter of fact way and made no attempt to embellish her accounts given to the police and in her witness statement to the HCPC.

48. Person 2 provided corroborative evidence of two occasions when she saw the Registrant assault her mother. She also provided supporting evidence of having overheard the Registrant’s behaviour towards her mother on a number of occasions. As with Person 1, the Panel found Person 2 to be a straightforward and credible witness, notwithstanding the passage of time since these alleged assaults are said to have taken place. She was open and honest about matters she could not remember or which she did not really understand the significance of at the time, due to her young age. Person 2 added no embellishment to her accounts, as given to the police and then, more latterly, the HCPC. The Panel found no reason to disbelieve her evidence.

49. The Panel noted that this was essentially a case of one person’s word against another (as referred to by the police) but acknowledged that this was often the case with historical physical and sexual abuse. It is the very essence of such cases that they often occur behind closed doors and with no others present and, because of the passage of time, there is no other corroborative evidence such as medical evidence. This is not, however, a reason to disbelieve the complainants or to find it impossible to find matters proved. It does require the Panel to consider the evidence of the complainants most carefully and to be satisfied that they are not fabricating their accounts or have a motive to discredit the Registrant. This, the Panel has done and as stated above, it found them both to be credible and honest witnesses and saw no reason to disbelieve their accounts.

50. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that between 2008 and 2018 the Registrant pushed, slapped and punched Person 1 many times, as detailed in Person 1’s evidence and supported to some extent by observations made by Person 2.

51. The Panel therefore found Particular 1 proved in its entirety.

Particular 2- found proved

2. On or about 4 January 2018 you:
a. Said to Person 1 “shut your fucking mouth or I will shut it for you”, or words to that effect;
b. Punched Person 1 in the head.

52. Again, the HCPC relied on the evidence of Person 1. The Panel has already indicated that it found Person 1 to be a credible and honest witness and she confirmed this incident in her oral evidence. In her witness statement, she said, ‘on 4 January 2018 … Mr Brooker became extremely agitated when confronted with these and warned me to “shut your fucking mouth or I will shut it for you”… he punched me in the back of the head.’

53. In her oral evidence, Person 1 explained that she reported this to the police, and this is supported by the occurrence enquiry log report, which notes the report of ‘violent domestic’ on 4 January 2018.

54. For the same reasons as detailed in its findings in relation to Particular 1 above, the Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that on or about 4 January 2018 the Registrant told Person 1 to ‘shut your fucking mouth or I will shut it for you’, or words to that effect. The Panel was equally satisfied that this was followed by the Registrant punching Person 1 in the head as described. This incident was clearly the trigger that drove Person 1 to finally go to the police and complain about the Registrant’s behaviour and was consistent with the police report of a ‘violent domestic’.

55. The Panel therefore found Particular 2 proved in its entirety.

Particular 3- found proved

3. On one or more unknown dates between around 2007 and 2012, whilst Person 2 was a minor residing at Address A, you:
a. Held Person 2 by their neck; and/or,
b. Threatened to hurt Person 2.

56. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Person 2, who described how on an occasion in 2007/2008, she could not be precise, when her mother and the Registrant were arguing, she saw the Registrant hit her mother. She said the Registrant spotted her and, after Person 1 had gone outside to get away from him, the Registrant grabbed her, Person 2, by her neck and said that if she told anyone what she had seen he would hurt her. Person 2 said she was terrified and did not report this incident to anyone. In her oral evidence, she said there was only one occasion when the Registrant grabbed her by the neck and she gave the context, namely that she had witnessed an incident of domestic violence against her mother, and this was the Registrant’s response to stop her from doing anything about it.

57. As indicated above, the Panel found Person 2 to be a credible witness. The Panel was cognisant of the passage of time since this was alleged to have happened, but considered Person 2 to have given a clear, consistent and cogent description of what she said occurred to the police, the HCPC and in her oral evidence. The Panel saw no reason to disbelieve her account. She was a child at the time and considered the Registrant to be a parental figure. It was a particularly memorable moment for her as she had a friend staying overnight and she was concerned about the friend overhearing any of this.

58. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that, on a date between 2007 and 2012, the Registrant held Person 2 by her neck and threatened to hurt her.

59. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3 proved in its entirety.

Particular 4 - found proved

4. On one or more occasions in around 2011 and/or 2012, whilst Person 2 was a minor, you:
a. Touched Person 2’s
i. Legs;
ii. Breasts; and/or
iii. Vagina.
b. Performed oral sex on Person 2; and/or
c. Placed Person 2’s hand on your penis.

60. Again, the HCPC relied on the evidence of Person 2. The Panel has already commented on the view it took of Person 2’s evidence generally. The Panel had particular regard to the ABE interview, on 12 January 2018, a very detailed interview conducted by a police officer trained in such matters. In that interview Person 2 described an occasion when she remembered being in the house alone with the Registrant and going upstairs and seeing him in his bedroom under the covers. She said she was young and did not really understand what he was doing. She said when the Registrant told her to go into the bedroom she did. Person 2 then described how the Registrant started taking her clothes off and she had no idea what was going on and then he started touching her and he was also touching himself.

61. Person 2 said that she would have been around 13 at the time and that this behaviour went on for a few weeks and would happen a couple of times a week. She said she felt like she could not say anything about it ‘because it would have caused so much and I didn’t want to cause anything' so she just kept quiet about it. She said the same things happened each time and she just felt like she had to do it for him, because ‘I don’t know what he would do if I didn’t.’

62. Person 2 went on to describe how on these occasions there would be no one else in the house and the Registrant would be naked. She said how the Registrant would stroke her legs, her breasts and her vagina (which she had initially described as her ‘privates’) and that he kept saying ‘I love you’ to her. Person 2 said he would also touch himself and later described how she thought he had ejaculated, because he would then go into the bathroom to clean himself up. At the time, however, she was young and did not really understand what was happening.

63. Person 2 said this happened a couple of times a week for about a month. It then stopped and she kept herself away from him. Person 2 said she had never confided in anyone about what the Registrant had been doing.

64. Person 2 went on to describe a time when she remembered the Registrant ‘pleasuring me with his mouth’. She went on to say that this would happen every other time and for a few minutes. She also said that the Registrant would try to get her to touch him. She said, ‘Like he’d put his hand and just try and get me to pleasure him but I didn’t want but I was forced to.’ She said that happened every time and he would ejaculate whilst that happened.

65. In a statement, dated 3 January 2023, Person 2 said there were some details which she had not disclosed in her ABE interview. She said she recalled that the Registrant ejaculated multiple times during the sexual abuse. She said when interviewed she could not remember, but that now she was older she understood that every time the Registrant got up from the bed following the sexual assaults, to go to the bathroom, he was going to clean himself up after ejaculating. She also recalled him calling her ‘sexy’ and asking her to touch his crotch. He would also try to kiss her on the lips.

66. In her oral evidence, Person 2 confirmed the content of her ABE interview as being a true and accurate record. As already stated above, the Panel found her to be a credible and honest witness and saw no reason why she would be making such accounts up. The Panel understood and accepted the reason why Person 2 had never spoken out before 4 January 2018, for fear of causing issues within the family unit (she saw the Registrant as a father figure) and a fear of what the Registrant might do. Equally compelling was the reason she did disclose in January 2018, because at that time the Registrant and Person 1 had effectively separated and so Person 2 finally felt safe to share the information. Even then, it was clear that she struggled to talk about what the Registrant had done to her and in her ABE interview she could not bring herself to say out loud that the Registrant had performed oral sex on her. Instead, she had to write it down and the interviewing police office then had to read it out.

67. The Registrant had not attended the hearing, nor had he provided any contrary account, although the Panel noted that he had denied committing any offences when interviewed by the police. By contrast, the Panel found Person 2 to be a consistent, compelling and credible witness and saw no reason to disbelieve her account.

68. In all the circumstances, the Panel accepted the evidence of Person 2 and found that, on the balance of probabilities, all the matters alleged in Particular 4 occurred as described by Person 2 and accordingly they were found proved.

Particular 5 - found proved

5. On one or more occasions between around 2013 and 2018, at Address B, you masturbated whilst watching the television programme set out at Schedule A.

69. Person 2 gave evidence that when she was around 15 years old she saw the Registrant masturbating whilst watching a television programme called ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’. This is an American documentary series that shows young children in America preparing for and competing in beauty pageants. She said she witnessed this on more than 10 occasions. She said this made her feel ‘sick’ and ‘incredibly scared’ as they were the only two people in the house and she felt there was nowhere safe she could go.

70. The Panel found Person 2 to be a credible witness. It saw no reason why she would have made this account up and was particularly struck by the programme she claimed the Registrant had been watching. This might be thought to be an odd choice of programme to have made up, it not being a sexual or sexualised series, but rather an innocent documentary given a rather more sinister and perverted meaning by the Registrant and his actions.

71. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant did engage in masturbation whilst watching this programme on at least one occasion.

72. Accordingly, the Panel found this Particular proved.

Particular 6 - found proved

6. Your conduct at particular 4 above was sexual and/or sexually motivated.

73. The Panel had next to decide whether the Registrant’s conduct, as found proved in Particular 4, was sexual or sexually motivated. The Legal Assessor’s advice was that sexual, as an adjective, relates to the feelings and activities connected with a person’s sexual desires. Acts that are sexually motivated are those done in the pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

74. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s conduct was both sexual and sexually motivated. It involved touching Person 2 on her legs, breasts and vagina and getting Person 2 to touch his penis. None of this was accidental touching. Given the circumstances as described by Person 2, it was clear that the Registrant was getting sexual gratification from touching Person 2 in such intimate areas, since he was ejaculating. This was even more the case when considering the oral sex performed by the Registrant on Person 2 and when the Registrant placed Person 2’s hand on his penis.

75. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant acted in a sexual and sexually motivated way when abusing Person 2, as detailed in Particular 4 above.

76. The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

Decision on Grounds

77. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. In so doing, it took into account all the evidence and the submissions made by Ms Bass. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 7 - Misconduct made out

78. The Panel has found proved allegations that the Registrant physically abused his former partner, Person 1, including slapping and punching her on numerous occasions over a ten year period. The Panel has also found proved allegations that the Registrant sexually abused Person 2, who was around 13 years old at the time, in the ways detailed in Particular 4. In addition, Person 2 witnessed the Registrant masturbating to a documentary series about children. In the Panel’s view this was extremely serious and worrying behaviour and indicative of deep-seated personality issues. It fell far short of the standard of behaviour expected from a Paramedic and its seriousness was in no way diminished by the passage of time. It clearly brought discredit upon the Registrant, the profession and the Regulator, for one of its registrants to act in this way. Notwithstanding the fact that this behaviour took place within the Registrant’s private life, the Panel was in no doubt that other members of the profession and indeed the public would find this behaviour utterly deplorable. Being a paramedic is an autonomous profession with access to the most vulnerable people of all ages in emergency situations. The public need to know they can have absolute trust in paramedics and that they do not have deep-seated personality issues that manifest themselves in depraved and violent behaviour, as demonstrated by the Registrant in this case.

79. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour, whether considered individually or collectively, amounted to misconduct.

80. In reaching this decision the Panel found there to be a breach of the 2016 Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics applicable to all HCPC registrants, namely:

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

Decision on Impairment

81. Having found the statutory ground of misconduct to be well founded, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired as a result of that misconduct. In doing so, it took into account the submissions made by Ms Bass, the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 8 - current impairment found

82. The Panel found proved the allegations that the Registrant engaged in sexually motivated behaviour with his then partner’s 13 year old daughter. The Panel considered the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to depraved, predatory behaviour and the abusing of a child for sexual gratification. The evidence clearly indicates that he has a sexual interest in children, as shown by the matters found proved in Particulars 4 and 5. This, the Panel considered to be deeply concerning. He is also clearly a violent man, as reflected in his repeated assaults on Person 1 and grabbing Person 2 by the neck and threatening her.

83. From the police report it is apparent that the Registrant denied this behaviour. He has not attended this hearing, nor has he provided any written representations for the Panel to consider. He has, therefore, demonstrated no insight or remorse into his appalling behaviour. As indicated, this sexually motivated and violent behaviour is suggestive of deep-seated attitudinal issues, which will be difficult to remediate and there was no evidence of any attempt to remediate. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered there to be a real risk that the Registrant would repeat his behaviour, particularly for so long as he remained in denial. The Panel was particularly aware that a Paramedic could have access to vulnerable children and women when acting in a solo role and this was a cause of great concern. Paramedics are expected to act with decency, honesty and integrity and the Panel could not be confident that the Registrant would do so.

84. The Panel considered that three of the four criteria identified by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report were engaged in this case. The actions of the Registrant had the potential to place vulnerable children and women at real risk of harm and the risk of repetition means that he is liable to place children and women at unwarranted risk of harm in the future. His conduct has undoubtedly brought his profession into disrepute, and, with no insight or remediation, the Panel was of the view that he was liable to do so again in the future. The Panel has identified that the Registrant has breached a core requirement of all registrants, namely, to ensure their conduct justifies the public trust and confidence in him and the profession of Paramedics and finds that this amounts to a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. There remains a risk of repetition in the future. The Panel therefore found the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired on the grounds of public protection.

85. The Panel went on to consider whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator significantly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made, given the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

86. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired both on public protection and public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

87. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Ms Bass, together with all the evidence and all matters of personal mitigation. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the HCPC, in its Sanctions Policy (“SP”). The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

88. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

• evidence of deep-seated personality issues;
• repeated assaults on Person 1, a vulnerable partner, over a long period of time;
• repeated sexual abuse of Person 2, a vulnerable young child;
• a complete absence of insight and/or remorse;
• an absence of remediation.

89. The Panel considered the following mitigating factor:

• a lack of any previous adverse disciplinary findings (although this was of limited mitigation in light of the nature and seriousness of the facts found proved).

90. In the absence of the Registrant, or any written representations from the Registrant, the Panel had no evidence before it of any other mitigating factors.

91. In light of the matters found proved, the Panel paid particular regard to paragraphs 79 and 93 of the SP. Paragraph 79 states: ‘Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’

92. Paragraph 93 of the SP states: ‘Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession (see standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics). Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted.’

93. The Panel considered both of these paragraphs to be relevant in this case and that the clear indication, when applied to this case, was that the Registrant should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice and a serious sanction was warranted.

94. Notwithstanding this indication, the Panel approached the question of sanction beginning with the least restrictive. In light of the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action or consider mediation, since neither would protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel or reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.

95. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. However, the Panel was firmly of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if such behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution. Further, a Caution Order would offer no protection to the public.

96. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The SP states that before imposing conditions a Panel should be satisfied that:

• the issues which the conditions seek to address are capable of correction;
• there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so;
• appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the registrant can be expected to comply with them; and
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether those conditions have or are being met.

97. The Panel could not be satisfied of the above and also noted from the SP that conditions will rarely be effective unless the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the issues they seek to address and can be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases:

• where the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process, lacks insight or denies any wrongdoing;
• where there are serious or persistent overall failings.

98. The Panel considered that acting in a sexually motivated way towards a child is not something easily addressed by way of conditions, nor is assaulting women. Furthermore, the Registrant lacks insight and has, as far as the Panel can ascertain, denied any wrongdoing, so it could not be known if he was committed to resolve the issues any conditions would seek to address, or could be trusted to make a determined effort to do so.

99. In addition, paragraph 108 states that conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:

• sexual misconduct;
• sexual abuse of children;
• violence.

100. Thus, even if it had been possible to formulate conditions, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order would adequately reflect, or deal with, the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct in this case.

101. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The SP states that, ‘Suspension should be considered where the allegation is of a serious nature but unlikely to be repeated and, thus, striking off is not merited.’ The Panel reminded itself of its earlier findings of a complete absence of insight, physical and sexually motivated abuse of a 13 year old child, physical abuse of Person 1 and the real risk of repetition. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings.

102. Although a Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration, the Panel was not satisfied that it would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process, or to send a clear message to the profession at large that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be a sufficient sanction in the circumstances of this case.

103. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the SP on making a Striking Off Order in order to decide whether such an Order would be appropriate. The guidance states that, ‘Striking off is a sanction of last resort for serious, deliberate or reckless acts involving abuse of trust such as, sexual abuse, dishonesty or persistent failure.’ It goes on to observe that ‘Striking off should be used where there is no other way to protect the public, for example, where there is a lack of insight, continuing problems or denial. A Registrant’s inability or unwillingness to resolve matters will suggest that a lower sanction may not be appropriate.’ The Panel finds that this case is characterised by denial, serious and deliberate sexually motivated acts committed on a child, physical abuse on a vulnerable woman, a complete lack of insight and remorse.

104. The SP goes on to suggest that a Striking Off Order may be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the allegations are such that any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect or undermine confidence in the profession. The Panel’s earlier finding, in relation to the consideration of a Suspension Order, identified that a lesser sanction would indeed be insufficient to represent these wider public interest issues in the specific circumstances of this case.

105. The Panel concluded that, in light of the profound seriousness of the misconduct, the lack of insight and remediation, leaving a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking Off Order. The Panel took into account the possible impact this would have upon the Registrant but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public or the public interest.

106. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking Off Order and directs the Registrar to erase Brian Brooker’s name from the Register.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Brian R Brooker from the register

Interim Order

Application

107. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Bass on proceeding to hear an application for an Interim Order in the absence of the Registrant and also on the need for an Interim Order to cover the period during which an appeal may be made and, if one is made, whilst that appeal is in progress. The Registrant was not present and therefore the Panel had, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note, first to decide whether to proceed to consider the Interim Order application in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Decision

108. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to consider the Interim Order application in the absence of the Registrant. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel took into account the contents of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant, on 26 July 2024, where it is stated, ‘Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may also impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.’ The Panel was satisfied this meant the Registrant was on notice that this was a possible outcome at this hearing.

109. The Panel remained satisfied that the Registrant had waived his right to be present at the hearing for the same reasons given for proceeding with the hearing in his absence, as detailed above. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to participate on a later date because there was no indication that he would do so on any other occasion. The Panel took into account the fact that it had identified there to be a continuing risk to the public if the Registrant were allowed to practise without restriction and decided it was clearly in the public interest to consider the Interim Order application today, even if that meant it was conducted in the absence of the Registrant.

110. The Registrant has been found to have engaged in the physical abuse of his previous partner and both the physical and sexual abuse of a 13 year old girl. This was most egregious behaviour, and the Panel has identified an ongoing risk to the public. Although the Registrant has indicated that he has not practised as a Paramedic for some years, it would always be open to him to change his mind and return to the profession. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public from the risks it has identified, during the 28 day appeal period, or the time taken to conduct any appeal, in the event that one is made.

111. The Panel is also of the view that, given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in this case, public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined if the Registrant were allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis, during any appeal period. The Panel therefore determined that an Interim Order is otherwise in the public interest.

112. The Panel first considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient. However, for the same reasons as dealt with at the sanction stage, the Panel concluded that conditions would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case.

113. The Panel therefore decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel decided that this Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months to allow sufficient time for any appeal to be made. This order will expire: if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; or, if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

114. That concludes this case.

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

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

History of Hearings for Mr Brian R Brooker