HCPTS |

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA36117

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 17/03/2025 End: 17:00 21/03/2025

Location: Via virtual video conferece

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

Allegation

As a registered Paramedic (PA36117) your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:

1. On 16 September 2020, you said to Colleague A:

a. “You’re a bit uptight. What you need is a good ****. Anybody at work you fancy?” or words to that effect.

b. “A ***** is a *** and it would do you some good” or words to that effect.

c. “I’ll give you my number if you like. Just message me whenever you want” or words to that effect.

d. Having sent a Facebook “friend” request to Colleague A, “Feel free to message me whenever you want a little something” or words to that effect.

2. In respect of Colleague B:

a. On 20th October 2020, you said to Colleague B “I can scrub your back for you. We can both get in the shower together” or words to that effect.

b. In or around 2018, when you worked with Colleague B, you regularly said to Colleague B that you could be friends with benefits;

c. On an unknown date, having commented that you were returning with Colleague B to an empty ambulance station, you said “We could make mad passionate love” or words to that effect;

d. On more than one occasion, you said to Colleague B, “When are we going to have an affair?”

3. In October 2020 at Waveney Ambulance Station, you put your hand or hands around Colleague C’s thigh.

4. Your conduct in relation to Particulars 1 and 2 was sexually motivated.

5. The matters set out in allegation 1, 2, 3, and 4 above constitute misconduct.

6. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel had sought and accepted advice on the legal requirements of service and the details that had to be sent to a registrant.

2. In advance of the hearing the Panel had received a service bundle within which was a copy of the Notice of Hearing letter dated 20 November 2024. Also within the service bundle were details of the Registrant’s registered postal and email addresses as shown on the HCPC register. The Panel had been provided with a certificate of electronic email service which evidenced that the Notice of Hearing letter had been successfully sent to the Registrant’s registered email address.

3. The Panel having checked that this information was all correct, including the details of the date, time and mode of the hearing, came to the conclusion that there had been good service in accordance with the rules.

Proceeding in the Registrant’s absence.

4. The Panel received an application from the HCPC to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In support of that application the HCPC referred the Panel to the following:

• There has been good service upon the Registrant, and nothing has been heard from him in response to that Notice of Hearing letter.

• That the Registrant has been consistent in his statements that he did not intend to engage in the HCPC regulatory process. This statement of intent was recorded within his communications dated 6 August 2021, 22 November 2021 and more recently 20 June 2024. Nothing more had been received to suggest that the Registrant had changed his stated intention to not engage in this hearing.

• There is therefore nothing from the Registrant to indicate that he is more likely to attend a hearing at any point in the future should there be an adjournment.

• The Registrant has not sought an adjournment, nor has he provided any reason for his absence other than his intention not to participate. It can therefore be assumed that he has voluntarily absented himself.

• There is a public interest in this hearing proceeding without any further delay, particularly as the matters alleged in Particulars 1, 2 and 3 are said to have occurred within the period 2018 to 2020.

• The HCPC has three witnesses warned and ready to give their evidence. Further delay in this hearing process may impact on their willingness to participate in the hearing, and may adversely affect the quality of their testimony.

5. The Panel sought and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice within which she directed the Panel to the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note relating to proceeding in the Registrant’s absence and the approach that the Panel should take on this issue. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence was not an unfettered one (Tait v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34) and was to be exercised with due care and extreme caution as identified in the cases of R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Cri.168 and R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.

6. The Panel applied the guidance within the Practice Note and took into account the arguments put forward by the HCPC in favour of proceeding, particularly the length of time since the alleged incidents occurred and the fact that three witnesses are ready to deliver their testimony.

7. The Panel considered that nothing would be gained by adjourning in the circumstances of this case. The Panel noted that the Registrant has clearly stated his intention not to engage in the HCPC process or attend this hearing. The Panel also noted that the Registrant has stated that he no longer wishes to work as a Paramedic or have anything to do with the HCPC. In relation to this hearing, he is recorded as stating:

In his email dated 22 November 2021 to the HCPC:

‘Please feel free to continue the proceedings if you so desire but I will not be participating in any way and have no interest in the outcome.

I hope that I have not been rude but I no longer wish to be associated with either the job as a paramedic or the hcpc.’

In his email dated 20 June 2024 to the Solicitors instructed by the HCPC:

‘Once again I find myself repeating myself. I am no longer a registered paramedic and have not been for some time. I have no intention of participating in this ridiculously long drawn out witch hunt,…I have no interest in the eventual outcome should there ever be one... and will have no other involvement.’

The Panel determined that it is in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing management

8. The Panel appreciated that in the absence of the Registrant the totality of the evidence would be derived from the evidence of the three HCPC witnesses. That evidence could therefore be considered by the Panel in in the round. This being the case, the Panel concluded that it would be sensible to consider the three stages of facts, grounds and impairment together.

Background

9. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, (the Trust), Waveney Region, is made up of three ambulance stations which are located at Waveney, Potter Heigham and Beccles. The Registrant was a Band 6 Paramedic working out of the Beccles Ambulance Station at the time of these events. The Registrant had been a registered Paramedic for many years.

10. The allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and inappropriate behaviour are set out in Particulars 1, 2 and 3. Formal complaints from those three female colleagues were made between approximately 27 October and 30 December 2020. In response to those complaints the Trust instigated an investigation and undertook interviews with the complainants in January 2021.

11. The Registrant was suspended from work on 27 October 2020 pending an investigation. The Registrant made a self-referral on 7 December 2020 to the HCPC relating to his suspension.

12. The Registrant was suspended until the disciplinary hearing on 16 July 2021, when he was dismissed from the Trust.

Evidence

13. The Panel received the HCPC’s bundle of documents, which consisted of (amongst other things) the witness statements of the three colleagues who had made complaints. Those witness statements had been prepared in May and June 2022. Those witness statements were supported by contemporaneous reports of the events and investigatory interview meeting notes from the Trust’s investigation, in January 2021.

14. The Panel received nothing directly from the Registrant. It had been provided with copies of three emails sent by the Registrant: two sent to the HCPC and one to its instructed firm of solicitors. Those are referenced within the decision.

HCPC submissions on facts

15. The HCPC invited the Panel to accept the evidence of the HCPC witnesses, who were, in the view of the HCPC, credible, consistent, and honest. The witnesses had openly admitted, when necessary, their failure to remember some of the detail due to the passage of time. This concession to failure of memory supported the HCPC’s view that theirs was evidence that could be relied upon. What the evidence demonstrates, in the HCPC’s view, is that there is a consistent pattern of inappropriate behaviour addressed to either younger or more junior female colleagues. This was behaviour which had exploited the power imbalance between the Registrant and those female colleagues.

16. Each witness described their encounters in different ways, but all with the theme that the Registrant’s actions had affected them and left them feeling uncomfortable. Colleague C was clearly angry at being touched without permission. Colleague A was concerned that she might be expected to put up with the Registrant’s behaviour and tried to avoid him at work. Colleague B had endured the Registrant’s unwanted comments and attention over many years which had adversely impacted on her until the incident on 20 October 2020, when she formally complained about him, and he was suspended from work.

17. The comments made by the Registrant were sexually motivated, seriously offensive and degrading. This was obvious to others as being inappropriate behaviour by him. The Registrant is critical of the complaints, and he has suggested that these comments were in some way in the nature of a joke or banter. It is unclear to the HCPC which parts are to be considered a joke, and in what era it was ever thought that these sorts of comments were appropriate, certainly not by 2018 and 2020, when made.

18. The HCPC submits that the Registrant had relied upon a culture that appeared to tolerate such comments and behaviour and where it had been assumed that there would be no complaint raised. Not only were the comments offensive and degrading, but they were also clearly sexually motivated. As Colleague B has recorded, the Registrant made the comments repeatedly and it was a sustained pattern of behaviour, one that persisted during the years she worked with him, 2014 – 2020. This was despite her repeatedly telling the Registrant that she was happily married and not interested in having an affair. The Panel has heard that colleagues who observed the comments set out in Particular 2a had been shocked at the Registrant’s behaviour.

19. The three witnesses have made a personal effort to pursue these matters, which must have been an uncomfortable one for them to make. The investigatory process, the HCPC procedure, and attendance at this hearing required courage. None had made their complaints immediately, but they had given reasons for not doing so. There was no lengthy delay in making the complaints and so their evidence should be considered as contemporaneous.

20. The Panel should take into account the way in which the Registrant’s behaviour had made them feel. Colleague A had taken steps to avoid the Registrant. Colleague B felt the impact on her for years later and had described her period working alongside the Registrant as making her dread going into work. Colleague C was angry at the time and again when she recalled the event. There is no suggestion of collusion, and these allegations stand in their own right.

21. The HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the case summary where the matrix of evidence that related to each of the elements of the Allegation could be found. This would assist the Panel in identifying the parts of the witnesses’ documentary evidence related to each limb. In the HCPC’s view the oral evidence of the three witnesses was in line with the documentary evidence and that each element of Particulars 1 to 3 had been made out.

22. In relation to the serious allegation of sexual motivation, the HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the leading case of Basson v GMC, in which the test for sexual motivation had been defined. The HCPC submitted that the comments made by the Registrant to Colleagues A and B were in the pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

23. Colleagues A and B had told the Panel how they felt and the effect the words used had upon them. The Registrant’s assertion that his comments were more in the nature of mess or locker room banter, and it was all part of being within the ambulance service was not how Colleagues A and B considered them. They had told the Panel that the Registrant’s comments were made with a different and discernible change of tone and intent which took it beyond a joke or banter and into the realm of personal comment.

24. Colleague A accepted that there was, at times, dark humour within the ambulance service, particularly given the circumstances of the incidents that they often attended. She accepted that whilst some of those comments between colleagues were sexual in content she had felt that the Registrant’s comments on 16 September 2020 felt decidedly different. The subsequent repetition of the comments and the Facebook invitation supported the feeling that the meaning was personal. In her witness statement she records ‘his facial expression was very serious, he was not smiling, and his tone did not imply he was joking.’ Colleague A was candid enough to say that she had considered that this may have been part of the trajectory of the sort of humour that was part of the job and that she would be expected to laugh it off. However, the motivation and tone made it clear it was not humour and it felt sincere. When the Registrant followed up the Facebook contact with the oral comment ‘feel free to message me whenever you want a little something’ confirmed her view the Registrant was pursuing a sexual relationship.

25. Colleague B considered the Registrant’s comments were sincere and he was being serious about having an affair with her. Her attempts to rebuff him had not stopped his comments, which had been part of a sustained pattern of behaviour that had started in 2014 and continued to 2020. In the HCPC’s view those comments, made over a period of years, were serious and were attempts at forming a sexual relationship with Colleague B.

26. The suggestion on 20 October 2020, first made in the ambulance, and then repeated at the ambulance station, that they shower together had made Colleague B very anxious and uncomfortable. She felt that there was a physical threat to such a degree that she changed her plans and had not showered before going home, even though this exposed her family to possible COVID infection.

27. The suggestion of making mad passionate love, at what would, at that time of night, be an empty ambulance station, had an impact on Colleague B. Her description of how that comment had made her feel was ‘scared’. She did not wish to be alone with the Registrant and she described how relieved she was, when a call came in from control that made the crew change route. The HCPC submitted that there was real sincerity in Colleague B’s testimony when she recalled that event.

Decision on Facts

28. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor on the way to approach its task at this fact-finding stage. The Panel noted that the burden of proof lay with the HCPC at this stage, and that the standard of proof in these proceedings, was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities.

29. The Panel appreciated that the Registrant did not have to prove or disprove anything, and that no adverse implication arose from his failure to do so. There were no admissions or denials by the Registrant in response to the HCPC’s communications with him. The Panel noted that in the Registrant’s emails to the HCPC dated 6 August 2021, he stated that he had been dismissed from the Trust, ‘all this over what used to be called a joke.’

30. The Panel noted that the HCPC addressed the issue of a delay, particularly with Colleagues A and C, formally reporting the incidents alleged in Particulars 1 and 3. The HCPC submitted that this should not be adversely construed and although Colleagues A, B and C had reported speaking to each other, they had not colluded in making their complaints.

31. The Panel noted that Colleague B reported the incident alleged in Particular 2a the next day and by way of email on 27 October 2020 and the Registrant was suspended on that date. The incidents in Particulars 1 and 3 were witnessed by other colleagues and Colleagues A and C did discuss with others what had happened to them. However, they did not formally report these incidents for several weeks. Colleagues A and C both gave evidence as to why they delayed reporting the incidents.

32. In her witness statement dated June 2022, Colleague A stated:

13. I can see from my statement at Exhibit 1, Appendix 6 that on 14 November 2020 I was approached separately by three other female colleagues. This included Colleague C, a Paramedic, and Colleague B, a Senior EMT. I believe that the third person may have been a Paramedic called but I am not certain on this. The third individual said to me that they had heard about what had happened to me and that they were concerned for my welfare. I responded that I was fine, and that I had not heard anything else from the Registrant. Colleague C approached me while I was putting drugs back in the drugs cupboard. She told me that I was not alone in having an uncomfortable experience with the Registrant and wanted to check that I was okay. Towards the end of my shift on 14 November 2020, Colleague B came up to me and told me that something similar had happened to her, and that there was a potential investigation. Colleague B in no way pressured me to report what had happened; she just informed me that there might be an investigation. I do not know what prompted all three colleagues to come and speak to me on the same day.

14. When I went home on the evening of the 14 November 2020, I started thinking back to the September incident and the feelings of discomfort came rushing back. I felt nauseated by the fact that the Registrant had made other women feel the way that I had. I decided to report the incident to my manager Colleague K, Locality Operations Manager. The main reason for the delay between the incident occurring and my reporting it was that I did not want to cause any problems. I knew that it would be a long, drawn-out process, and I did not want it to have an impact on my career or on other people’s opinion of me as a professional. I was also aware that I had told several people immediately after the incident. I felt that I should not have done this, that I had invalidated my experience, and that I would be seen in a bad light. However, I decided that coming forward was the right thing to do. I was also encouraged by the fact that Colleague L was on secondment as the Area General Manager (“AGM”) at that time. The usual AGM was Colleague M and Colleague L’s usual role was the AGM for a different area. Colleague L is very approachable and I knew that he would take what had happened seriously. I may have hesitated to report the incident if Colleague L had not been in the AGM role at the time.

33. In oral evidence Colleague A also stated that although she couldn’t remember the detail of the separate conversations she had with Colleagues B and C, given the passage of time, she clearly recalled that the purpose of the conversations was concern for her welfare. She also stated that she had not in any way been pressured to make a complaint about the Registrant. Rather, on reflection she said that she felt it was ‘necessary’ to report it so as to prevent others being mistreated by the Registrant in the future.

34. With regards to Colleague C the Panel noted that in her witness statement, dated May 2022, she did not set out the reason for her delay. In the disciplinary investigation interview dated January 2021, Colleague C stated:

‘… I would like to say I feel bad about raising a Datix about a colleague, I have never done it before I would much rather raise it with my colleague if I had a problem or a clinical concern… I don’t really like confrontation, but I gave this some thought and reflected back to when I first started and how something like this could really knock someone’s confidence that is new on the job so that is largely why I decided to raise it.’

In her evidence to the Panel, Colleague C provided a similar explanation to why she decided to raise the incident formally. She also stated that she recalled discussing the incident with Colleague N, a welfare officer, to gauge whether she had reacted disproportionately and was reassured that unwanted touching was not appropriate in the ambulance service.

35. Colleagues B and C both gave evidence to the Panel regarding the separate conversations they had with Colleague A on 14 November 2020. Colleagues B and C stated that they were concerned for the welfare of Colleague A when they approached her. Colleague A’s evidence to the Panel was that she was unable to recall the detail of the conversations, however the nature and tone of the conversations was regarding her welfare and supporting her.

36. Having carefully considered the evidence of Colleagues A, B and C, the Panel was satisfied that Colleagues A, B and C had not colluded to bring complaints against the Registrant. It was clear that Colleague B had reported the incident in Particular 2a on 21 October 2020 and formally in writing in her email dated 27 October 2020. This was done independently of any discussion with Colleagues A and C. The Panel accepted the reasons provided by Colleagues A and C for their initial reluctance to formally report the incidents. The Panel also considers that it is likely that the conversations that took place in November 2020 gave them courage to report the incidents and this was also borne out of concern that the Registrant might repeat such behaviour with other, younger and junior female ambulance staff.

Particular 1

1. On 16 September 2020, you said to Colleague A:

a. “You’re a bit uptight. What you need is a good fuck. Anybody at work you fancy?” or words to that effect.

b. “A fuck is a fuck and it would do you some good” or words to that effect.

c. “I’ll give you my number if you like. Just message me whenever you want” or words to that effect.

d. Having sent a Facebook “friend” request to Colleague A, “Feel free to message me whenever you want a little something” or words to that effect.

37. The evidence for this incident on the stated date is supported by Colleague A’s testimony, witness statement, her email to Colleague L on 30 December 2020, and the investigation meeting notes of 21 January 2021. These two documents from December 2020 and January 2021 were accepted by the Panel as relatively contemporaneous notes of the events in September 2020.

38. Prior to the 16 September 2020 the Registrant and Colleague A had worked together on three occasions. This incident covers two separate interactions. The first three comments to Colleague A were made whilst she and her crewmate were in the rest area at Waveney station. The sending of the Facebook friend invitation and fourth comment were whilst the Registrant and Colleague were at John Paget Hospital.

39. In relation to the first comment, “You’re a bit uptight. What you need is a good fuck. Anybody at work you fancy?” had come out of the blue and she had been taken aback by it, particularly as she didn’t know the Registrant very well. The comment had shocked her because it was so personal. When the Registrant then made the comment ‘a fuck is a fuck’, Colleague A, although she felt uncomfortable, had laughed along and tried to move the conversation off topic by making a joke of herself, saying that no one would want to have sex with her. It was at this point that the Registrant who had been seated on the sofa turned round whilst still in position to where she had been sat on a chair and extended his hand and said ‘My Name is Graham Scott, nice to meet you.’ “I’ll give you my number if you like. Just message me whenever you want” Colleague A stated that at this point the Registrant’s facial expression was very serious and he was not smiling, and his tone did not imply he was joking. Colleague A noticed that Colleague G had at this point stopped eating his sandwich and was staring at her and he seemed tense. In her email of 30 December 2020, Colleague A described her reaction to this incident as being ‘shocked at being propositioned’.

40. Later that afternoon the Registrant had sent a Facebook invitation to Colleague A. In her witness statement, dated June 2022, she stated that she had not accepted this Facebook invitation. However, in her email of 30 December 2020 she stated that she had accepted the Facebook invitation. When questioned about this, in oral evidence, Colleague A said that she clearly recalled accepting the invitation in the back of the ambulance. In her email of 30 December 2020 and in oral evidence, she said that she was concerned when she received this invitation as it confirmed the sincerity of the Registrant’s earlier proposition and by not accepting the Facebook invitation it may lead to further difficulties, given a number of colleagues were friends with her on Facebook. She said that she thought that accepting the invitation would be the best way to deal with the situation.

41. Following this, Colleague A’s evidence is that the Registrant asked her ‘Have you seen my Facebook friend request?’ (I distinctly remember he chuckled here, which made me feel uncomfortable.)’ ‘Feel free to message me whenever you want a little something.’ Colleague A records in her witness statement that she felt nauseous, because she anticipated that this would not be the last interaction, and that she would have to rebuff the Registrant’s advances in the future, which working with him uncomfortable and awkward. She went home feeling uncertain about the interactions that day and spoke to her family who assured her that behaviour like that should not be tolerated.

42. The Panel noted that Colleague A’s oral evidence reflected her initial recording of events in her email of 30 December 2020. The Panel was also satisfied that apart from the inaccuracy in her witness statement regarding whether she had accepted the Registrant’s Facebook invitation, her evidence was consistent. The Panel determined that Colleague A’s evidence was credible and reliable. It noted that where she could not recall specific details due to the passage of time, she was open and honest about this. However, the Panel was satisfied that she clearly recalled the Registrant’s comments and behaviour on 16 September 2020 and how these had made her feel. The Panel therefore determined that Particulars 1a – 1d are found proved.

Particular 2

2. In respect of Colleague B:

a. On 20th October 2020, you said to Colleague B “I can scrub your back for you. We can both get in the shower together” or words to that effect.

b. In or around 2018, when you worked with Colleague B, you regularly said to Colleague B that you could be friends with benefits;

c. On an unknown date, having commented that you were returning with Colleague B to an empty ambulance station, you said “We could make mad passionate love” or words to that effect;

d. On more than one occasion, you said to Colleague B, “When are we going to have an affair?”

41. The Panel received the oral evidence and witness statement of Colleague B. In addition, it had the email of the 27 October 2020 addressed to a senior member of management in which Colleague B set out her concerns relating to the events of the 20 October 2020. The Panel also had a copy of the notes of the investigation meeting in which the elements of Colleague B’s complaint as identified in Particular 2(a) are repeated. Within those meeting notes Colleague B is asked whether there are any further issues of concern she wished to raise relating to the Registrant. In response Colleague B identified previous concerns relating to the Registrant’s historic conduct. Those matters are reflected within limbs (b) to (d) of Particular 2.

42. In relation to Particular 2(a), the Panel heard that the incident on the 20 October 2020, had made Colleague B so uncomfortable that she had taken the step of raising the issue as a formal complaint. This incident had taken place during COVID restrictions and so Paramedics were to avoid further contamination by showering and changing at the end of their shifts before going home. At the Beccles ambulance station at that time the shower in the men’s changing facilities was not working. Men were therefore using the only working shower in the women’s changing facilities which had a glass shower screen. Those men wishing to use the female shower would indicate in advance and the women would then use the disabled facilities if they wished to go to the lavatory.

43. Colleague B told the Panel that the suggestion of her showering with the Registrant had made her physically scared. The Registrant’s comments were repeated in front of three other colleagues on arrival back at the Beccles ambulance station. Colleague B told the Panel that she left the Ambulance station immediately without showering and went home unwashed therefore exposing her family to possible Covid infection.

44. In relation to the incident in Particulars 2(b) and (d), Colleague B told the Panel that she was repeatedly asked the question of whether and when she was going to have a friendship with benefits or have an affair with the Registrant. Colleague B told the Panel that in her view ‘friends with benefits’ was one where, without any complications, they would have an intimate sexual relationship. She told the Panel that she had repeatedly rebuffed the idea stressing that she was happily married and not interested. Colleague B recalled in her investigation meeting and during oral evidence, telling the Registrant words to the effect that ‘Hell would have to freeze over’ before she had an affair with him. But even this statement of defiance had not stopped his behaviour.

45. In relation to Particular 2(c), the incident on an unknown date where the Registrant had suggested that they make mad passionate love when they got back to the station, Colleague B told the Panel that she had become truly physically scared. She said that the idea of returning to the station, which was a small remote station which, at that time of night, was empty, scared her. She told the Panel that she was flooded with relief when a new incident came in and they had to divert to it, rather than return to the station.

46. The Panel considered that Colleague B’s evidence was consistent and credible. It noted that her account of events in the documentary evidence before the Panel and in her oral evidence remained unchanged even when questioned. The Panel accepted that Colleague B had tried to manage the Registrant’s behaviour and reporting it had taken its toll on her. The Panel noted that the effort of giving evidence had been visibly distressing for her. The Panel was satisfied that Colleague B provided a credible and reliable account of the Registrant’s behaviour and the incident on 20 October 2020. The Panel therefore determined that Particulars 2(a) to (d) are proved.

Particular 3

3. In October 2020 at Waveney Ambulance Station, you put your hand or hands around Colleague C’s thigh.

47. The Panel received the oral evidence and witness statement of Colleague C and had received in one sheet format extracts from the Datix referral prepared by Colleague C. This document was undated, however, according to Colleague C, was submitted 4-6 weeks after the incident. Colleague C told the Panel that she had identified dates in 2020 where she had worked over lunch as the incident had taken place on a lunch break. Colleague C had also exhibited the notes of her investigation meeting dated 13 January 2021.

48. Colleague C gave evidence that was consistent with that documentary evidence. Colleague C explained that before this event in October 2020 she did not know the Registrant well having worked with him only a few times each month.

49. Colleague C told the Panel that she had returned to the Waveney ambulance station without her rapid response vehicle having accompanied a patient to hospital with the ambulance. She was looking for anyone on a break who may be able to take her back to where she had left her car which was about a thirty-minute drive away. Colleague C went into the kitchen area where the Registrant was sat on a chair at a dining table. Colleague C described in her evidence how she was standing behind the Registrant’s chair when she asked out loud if anyone was on a break and able to take her back. At this request the Registrant swung round in his chair and put his hands on Colleague C’s thigh and said, ‘what is wrong with these’. Colleague C estimated that the Registrant’s hands were midway up her thigh and that the hand on the inside of her thigh stretched round to the back encircling her thigh.

50. Colleague C told the Panel that her reaction to this had been instantaneous and in response to an internal explosion of anger. She apologised for the wording chosen to convey her annoyance, but they represented her level of anger at this action of grabbing her thigh without her permission. She told the Registrant, ‘get your fucking hands off me’ at which point the Registrant removed his hands and moved his hands into the air to show that he had disengaged and turned back to face Colleague Q whose face had shown shock. Colleague C considered that Colleague Q’s reaction of shock validated her reaction to the Registrant’s unwarranted and unwanted touching of her thigh by the Registrant. Colleague C had left the lunchroom immediately.

51. Colleague C told the Panel in oral evidence that at some point after the event she discussed the incident with Colleague N, a Welfare Ambassador for the Trust. Colleague C told the Panel that when she mentally revisited the incident the anger she had felt came back.

52. The Panel considered Colleague C’s oral evidence to be consistent with her documentary evidence. The Panel determined that her description of the incident was clear, credible and reliable. The Panel therefore accepted her evidence and found Particular 3 proved.

Particular 4

4. Your conduct in relation to Particulars 1 and 2 was sexually motivated.

53. The Panel received detailed advice from the Legal Assessor as to what would constitute sexual motivation and within that advice she referred the Panel to the following case law.

A “sexual motive” was considered in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) by Mostyn J, who held, that conduct had a sexual motive if it was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Although, sexual motivation is a finding of fact, it depends not on direct evidence but can be inferred from all the surrounding evidence.

54. The Panel noted that the HCPC’s case was that the Registrant had sought to establish a future sexual relationship with Colleagues A and B. The evidence of those two witnesses clearly showed that in their view the Registrant had through his words indicated that this was what he intended. Colleague A described her reactions and feeling when she received the Facebook invitation and the follow up comment from the Registrant that she could contact him anytime she needed anything. These actions confirmed to her that the initial conversation at Waveney was not a passing shot but behaviour with the purpose of pursuing a future sexual relationship. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour towards Colleague A, by his physical gesture of turning around and in a serious tone of voice re-introducing himself to her, was clearly intended to let Colleague A know that he was seeking a future sexual relationship with her.

55. The Panel heard from Colleague B that between 2014-2020, she had endured his unwanted attention. Colleague B described to the Panel how she dreaded going into work alongside the Registrant. The Panel considered that the words used by the Registrant, as set out in Particular 2, were unambiguous and that the Registrant was very serious about his intention to pursue a sexual relationship with Colleague B.

57. It was clear to the Panel from the express wording used towards Colleagues A and B, as set out in Particulars 1 and 2, and his behaviour, that the Registrant had openly pursued Colleagues A and B, with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship with them. The Panel therefore finds Particular 4 proven.

Submissions on grounds

58. The HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the sections of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2014 edition) which in the HCPC’s view were engaged in this case and those were:

2.5 – Working with colleagues

2.7 – Social media and networking websites

6.2 – Identify and minimise risk

9.1 – Personal and professional behaviour

59. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s consistent pattern of behaviour would be considered by fellow practitioners as deplorable. In the HCPC’s view the Registrant’s actions towards females who were younger and junior to him.

60. Objectively the Registrant’s behaviour in Particulars 1-4 was unprofessional and constituted a breach of a professional boundaries with fellow female colleagues. In relation to Colleague A it was behaviour of a personal nature within a situation where there had not previously been any rapport. The Registrant’s impact on Colleague B had been profound and had resulted in her changing her rotas and shifts as well as the ways in which she conducted herself. In relation to Colleague C the Registrant’s behaviour had manifested itself as a physical touching of a fellow practitioner without her consent.

61. The Registrant had abused his position of seniority and caused upset and distress to those who were less able to respond. In the HCPC’s view the Registrant’s actions, individually and collectively, amount to serious misconduct and conduct that would be considered deplorable by the public as well as fellow practitioners.

Decision on Grounds

62. The Panel appreciated at this stage that there was no burden upon the HCPC and that the decision at this stage was one for the Panel’s professional judgment. In carrying out its assessment the Panel was able to consider all information before it relating to the misconduct alleged.

63. The Panel sought and accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor who gave guidance that the misconduct had to be serious misconduct. In other words, conduct which fellow practitioners would find deplorable.

64. It had been submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant had breached four of the standards set out in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics [2014 edition]. The Panel appreciated that it was at liberty to consider all the standards when making its decision and further that a breach of those standards did not of itself constitute serious misconduct.

65. In the Panel’s view the Registrant’s actions had been in breach of the following five standards:

2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.

The Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour in Particulars 1-4 impacted adversely on his colleagues and this in turn could impact on the care that they provided to Service Users. The Panel acknowledged that there were stresses arising from working remotely with one other practitioner within a confined space where one felt intimidated or frightened of the other. This could impact on the care given to patients. As an example, Colleague B described how she had altered her work pattern to minimise working alongside the Registrant and had changed her behaviour, such as going home without showering. She described herself as being frightened and scared when with the Registrant. Colleague A had described how she had taken steps to avoid interaction with the Registrant.

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

The Panel determined that the Registrant had used Facebook inappropriately to further his sexual propositioning of Colleague A, which had an adverse impact on Colleague A.

6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

The Panel considered that these were engaged in the circumstances of this case. All three witnesses stated that they had been made to feel uncomfortable by the Registrant’s behaviour. Colleague B described her state of anxiety as resulting in her dreading going to work each day. The Panel accepted that the Registrant’s behaviour had also negatively impacted Colleagues A and C’s wellbeing.

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

The Registrant’s record over many years of subjecting younger and junior female colleagues to inappropriate, unprofessional, and sexually motivated, conduct was a cause for concern and would, in the Panel’s view, undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the Registrant and his profession.

66. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s actions had been in breach of two of the Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics [2014 edition] and those are:

3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team.

The Panel considers that both of these, whilst to some extent overlapping with the provisions of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, imposed standards that relate specifically to the unique role of a paramedic: a role which comes with additional collegiate responsibilities when working in a small team of two or three.

67. In the Panel’s view the Registrant’s conduct involved three female colleagues which were younger and/or more junior than him. Colleagues A and C were in their early 20s at the time of the incidents and at a relatively early stage of their paramedic careers. Colleague B was junior to the Registrant. The Panel considered that, as a result, all three colleagues were vulnerable, and that the Registrant had preyed upon their vulnerability.

68. The Registrant’s behaviour included sexually motivated conduct which was repeated over a significant period of time. It also involved three female colleagues who were vulnerable and in respect of Colleague B, the behaviour was repeated and sustained over a lengthy period. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s behaviour fell significantly short of what is expected of a Paramedic. The Panel considers that the matters found proven, individually and collectively, constitute serious misconduct. Particular 5, relating the ground of misconduct as set out in Article 22 1(a)(1), is therefore established.

Submission on impairment

69. The HCPC directed the Panel to the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note relating to impairment.

70. In relation to the personal component of the Panel’s decision the Panel was reminded of the Registrant’s stance to these matters and his lack of engagement which has resulted in the Panel having nothing to support that there had been any insight, remorse or remediation.

71. The Panel was also reminded of the impact that the Registrant’s behaviour had upon these three female colleagues and that there was a pattern of inappropriate behaviour with no evidence that such behaviour would not be repeated in the future.

72. It was the HCPC’s position that the Registrant’s conduct had breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and had brought his profession and himself into disrepute.

73. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s conduct had demonstrated attitudinal flaws as well as behavioural. The Panel will appreciate that is a difficult to address attitudinal concerns and so it was therefore very likely that the Registrant would act in the same way again.

Decision on Impairment

74. The Panel was aware that its decision should reflect whether, as of today, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. The Panel had received advice from the Legal Assessor on the issues to consider at this time and as advised had referenced the Practice Note entitled, ‘Impairment’ and applied the guidance set out in that document.

75. The Panel appreciated that at this stage it could take into account all information placed before it. The Panel noted again that the Registrant had not provided it with any information.

76. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct as set out in Particulars 1 - 4 had breached the fundamental tenets of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. In particular, the Panel determined that the Registrant had not demonstrated professional behaviour, and his misconduct had brought the profession into disrepute.

77. The Panel considered that, in principle, the Registrant’s conduct was capable of being remediated. However, in this case, the Panel had not been provided with any evidence of insight, remorse or remediation.

78. The Panel noted the Registrant’s communications with the HCPC and its instructed Solicitors where he stated:

a. ‘I have been suspended from work pending their investigation for 9 months and have now had my disciplinary hearing and been dismissed from the trust, all this over what used to be called a joke.’ [6 August 2021]

b. ‘…it has greatly improved now that I no longer work for the bunch of incompetents that are the East of England ambulance management’. [22 November 2022]

c. ‘Once again I find myself repeating myself. I am no longer a registered paramedic and have not been for some time. I have no intention in participating in this ridiculously drawn out witch hunt... I have no interest in the eventual outcome should there ever be one...’ [20 June 2024]

79. From this the Panel has concluded that the Registrant considers that there is nothing for him to apologise for. Indeed, the Registrant is critical of the investigation and regulatory process, for taking him to task for the use of words and conduct that he considered would fall within the ambit of a joke.

80. The Panel considers that by these remarks the Registrant has demonstrated a failure that to appreciate how and why his conduct at Particulars 1-4 was unacceptable and unprofessional.

81. The Panel determined that given the complete lack of insight, remorse and remediation, there is a high risk that the Registrant’s previous misconduct would be repeated. The Panel therefore finds current impairment on the personal component.

82. The Panel was aware that the public component of its decision was a separate consideration taking into account the need to uphold the reputation of the profession and maintaining the standing of the regulatory process. The Panel considered that there was not one aspect of the Registrant’s behaviour that would be considered by the public as being professional or appropriate. Sexually motivated comments and conduct by a senior paramedic would seriously undermine the public confidence in the profession if the facts and facets of this case were in the public arena. In such circumstances as these the public would be rightly concerned if no marque of censure were imposed. The Panel therefore finds impairment on the public component of its decision.

83. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public components.

Submissions on Sanction

84. The HCPC did not suggest any particular level of sanction. However, where the Panel’s findings are that there had been a sustained pattern of sexually motivated conduct, a lack of remorse, insight, apology and no evidence of remediation. It reminded the Panel that it had found there to be a high risk of repetition.

85. The HCPC invited the Panel to consider what, if any, mitigating and aggravating factors applied in this case. It submitted that a number of aggravating factors were present and included the Registrants serious, repetitious and consistent pattern of behaviour. The HCPC reminded the Panel of the impact that the Registrant’s conduct had upon all three colleagues, who were younger and/or junior and therefore could be considered to be vulnerable. The impact on Colleague B had been real. She had changed her routine during the period of Covid and had her work shift pattern changed to reflect her preference. Colleague A had taken steps to avoid the Registrant.

86. The HCPC reminded the Panel that the imposition of a sanction is not only to provide public protection but to also act as a deterrent to others from acting the same way. The HCPC drew the Panel to the case of Bolton v Law Society [1994] WLR (512), where it was stated that being part of a profession comes with the benefits of that professional status, but it also comes with the burden of upholding the standards and reputation of that profession. Bolton confirmed that the standing of the profession is greater than the fortunes of its individual members and this is the price one paid for being part of that profession.

87. The HCPC reminded the Panel of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy and in particular, the guidance in relation to serious cases. It submitted that this case involved:

• Abuse of a professional position,

• Predatory behaviour,

• Vulnerability,

• Sexual misconduct.

88. The HCPC Submitted that, in the absence of any remorse, insight, apology or remediation, there is a high risk of repetition of the misconduct found proved in the case and therefore there is a real public protection issue. The HCPC confirmed that to date the Registrant has not been the subject of an interim order.

Decision on Sanction

89. The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that the Panel’s task at this stage was to balance the wider public interest with those of the Registrant. Sanctions were not intended to be a punishment, but the imposition of the minimum restriction on the Registrant’s practice that will ensure continued public protection. The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor to refer to, and take into account, the guidance contained within the HCPTS’s Sanctions Policy. She identified issues addressed in that Policy which would assist the Panel in making its decision as to the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

90. The Panel appreciated that any sanction imposed should maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, as well as act as a deterrent to fellow practitioners.

91. As to what would be the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, the Panel started its deliberations by identifying the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case. In relation to mitigating factors, the Panel did not identify any in this case.

92. In relation to aggravating factors, the Panel identified the following:

• An abuse of position as a senior paramedic to prey upon younger and/or more junior female colleagues.

• A repeated pattern of predatory and unacceptable behaviour, including sexually motivated behaviour towards colleagues. In the case of Colleague B this took place over a significant period of time.

• Harmful behaviour towards colleagues and behaviour that had the potential to cause harm to Service Users and the wider public.

• A complete lack of insight, remorse, apology and remediation.

93. The Panel considered that several of the ‘serious case’ factors in the Sanctions Policy were present in this case:

• Failure to work in partnership with his colleagues.

• Abuse of his professional position, to pursue a pattern of inappropriate and predatory sexual behaviour with younger and/or more junior female colleagues.

• Vulnerability, pursuing a sexual relationship with younger and/or more junior female colleagues.

• Sexual misconduct which impacts on the public’s trust and confidence in the profession.

94. Given the presence of these serious and aggravating factors, the Panel was satisfied that this was a case that would seriously undermine the standing of the profession and the public’s confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

95. The Panel considered the range of sanctions available to it in ascending order. The Panel considered that given the extent of the aggravating factors, the likelihood of repetition and therefore the need for public protection, consideration of taking no further action, mediation or imposition of a caution order would not be appropriate.

96. The Panel did not consider that a conditions of practice order would be appropriate or proportionate in this case, given the nature of the misconduct and the lack of engagement from the Registrant.

97. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions were contrary to the fundamental principles of being a professional; in breach of the tenets of his profession; and incompatible with remaining on the register. The Panel considered this to assist it in assessing whether the imposition of a period of suspension was appropriate, or this was a case which warranted the ultimate sanction of a Striking Off order.

98. The Panel considered the guidance within the Sanctions Policy in relation to the circumstances when it may be appropriate to impose a period of suspension. In this instance the Panel found there was no insight; a high risk of repetition of the misconduct; and no indication that the Registrant could, or would, be able to address his attitudinal behaviour. The Panel therefore concluded that a period of suspension would not appropriate.

99. In imposing a Striking Off Order the Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy identified that one of the factors in such a decision, was a case in which there had been sexual misconduct, as in this instance. The Policy also stated that a Striking Off Order was likely to be appropriate where the gravity of the concerns was such that a lesser sanction would not be sufficient to protect the public. It also states that it is appropriate in cases where there is lack of insight, repetition of the conduct is high and there is an unwillingness to resolve matters. Those elements are all present in this case.

100. The Panel has therefore determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is a Striking Off Order, and this is required for public protection and the wider public interest.

Order

Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike off the name of Graham Scott from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

Right of Appeal:
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

1. The Panel has evidence that the Registrant had received that Notice of Hearing letter. In the HCPC’s submission it is appropriate for this Panel to hear its application to proceed in his absence now.

2. The Panel was satisfied that the reference to the possibility of an application for an interim order had been included within the Notice of Hearing letter. That letter had been considered on day one of the Hearing in terms of accuracy of the information that should be included in such a Notice of Hearing Letter. The Panel therefore considered that there had been good service.

3. The HCPC stated that there had been no further indication from the Registrant that he would be willing to engage in this HCPC process at any point. As the Panel will have noted on day one of the hearing, there had been little or no engagement by the Registrant and his responses had shown a clear indication that he did not wish to be involved in this final hearing process. For all those reasons the HCPC considers that that no purpose would be served in adjourning this interim order application hearing.

4. As the HCPC had highlighted, there is little to assume that the Registrant would attend should there be an adjournment. The Panel considered that this was a case where an adjournment would not be in the public interest at this time when the Panel had made a final determination that an order to Striking Off the Registrant was required for public protection and the public interest. The Panel therefore decided that it would proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application

5. The HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months. This application is made to ensure that the Registrant would be prohibited from practising during the twenty-eight-day appeal period, and should there be an appeal, the order would be sufficiently long to cover the time within which such appeal would be determined.

6. In the HCPC’s view, an order is necessary in this instance, where there have been findings of serious misconduct such that a Striking-off Order was considered by the Panel as the proportionate and appropriate sanction. One of the reasons why the Panel considered this was the correct level of sanction, related to the risk of repetition, which it considered to be high and given the nature of the sexual conduct, it was necessary for public protection. In the HCPC’s view that would support the making of an interim order not only in order to provide public protection but it was also required in the wider public interest.

Decision

7. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that under Article 31(1)(c) the Panel has a discretionary power to impose an interim conditions of practice order or interim suspension order where there has been a determination under Article 29(5)(c), the imposition of a Striking-Off Order.

8. The Panel noted that an Interim Order can be imposed on one of three grounds of being necessary for public protection, or in the Registrant’s interest, or the wider public interest. The application by the HCPC is on the basis of public protection and the public interest.

9. Within the guidance in the HCPTS Sanctions Policy a situation that would support the imposition of an interim order included that where ‘the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’ In the Panel’s view, this is the situation in this case, where the basis for the Panel’s decision to impose a Striking Off order was that the public would be rightly concerned if the Registrant were allowed to continue in practice after findings of serious sexually motivated misconduct aimed at female colleagues who were, by virtue of being younger and/or more junior, vulnerable.

10. The Panel had concluded that in this case there was a high risk of repetition of the behaviour complained of in the absence of any evidence of steps taken to remediate that conduct which displayed an attitudinal concern. The Panel therefore considered that an interim order was necessary in such a situation.

11. The Panel considered that the imposition of an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate nor proportionate for all the reasons set out in the Panel’s final determination. Further, there was no evidence that the Registrant would comply with any interim Conditions of Practice Order imposed.

12. The Panel has therefore concluded an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months was necessary on the grounds of public protection and in the wider public interest. The Panel also concluded that 18 months was necessary to allow any appeal to be determined.

13. In imposing an Interim Suspension Order the Panel considered the impact on the Registrant. The Panel determined that the need for public protection and the wider public interest outweighed the interests of the Registrant.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension 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.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Graham Scott

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
17/03/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off