Khaled represented a paramedic, G, who was under investigation by the police for serious sexual offences. The regulator sought an interim suspension order. No charges had been brought and the regulator had no evidence to substantiate the allegations, other than confirmation of the existence of an investigation. Khaled successfully argued that without a charging decision or at least some corroborative evidence, the paramedic faced ‘bare allegations’ and nothing upon which a panel could base a proper risk assessment. The panel determined that there was no cogent evidence, and that in any case there was no proven risk to patients or members of the public - and that the case did not meet the threshold for an order to be made to uphold the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. No order was made.
Whilst a police investigation into serious criminal offences is a matter of concern for any regulator, the investigation itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing. There remains a presumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and that can only be trumped where formal criminal charges have been laid, or there is evidence available to the regulator on which a panel could conclude that there are risks if the registrant is allowed to continue practising unrestricted.
