Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Paramedic ordered struck off following voyeurism conviction

Benjamin Southam's case concerned recording a woman in a changing cubicle. The panel found no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning Benjamin Southam, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA51122).

Decision date: 17 July 2026 · Hearing started 16 July 2026 and ended 17 July 2026

In plain English

Paramedic Benjamin Southam was ordered struck off following a conviction for voyeurism after recording a woman in a swimming-pool changing cubicle. The panel found no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition. It concluded that his fitness to practise was impaired and that a lesser sanction would not adequately protect the public or maintain professional confidence.

Charges

A conviction at Ipswich Crown Court on 19 June 2025, following a guilty plea, for voyeurism by recording a private act.

Findings

The panel found the conviction proved and current impairment on both personal and public components. The offence involved filming a woman in a swimming-pool changing cubicle. It found no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition. It ordered striking off when the order takes effect. In the published interim-order reasons the panel also concluded that interim suspension was necessary for public protection and the public interest; the final published sentence is incomplete, so no precise interim term is inferred here.

Mitigating factors

Isolated incident – This was acknowledged by the Panel, although it considered that only a limited amount of weight could be attached to this in light of the serious and sexually motivated nature of the incident. Guilty plea entered in the criminal proceedings - The Panel considered this could have been a mitigating factor but attached no weight to this given the plea was only entered very late in the criminal proceedings, near to the start of the trial and, prior to that, the Registrant had dishonestly blamed his child for the incident. Remorse – The Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks in the criminal proceedings made brief reference to the Registrant’s remorse, although there was no further detail. The Panel considered that it could attach very little weight to this as the Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory proceedings, he had not expressed any remorse during his correspondence with the HCPC or made any submissions of remorse to the Panel for consideration.

Aggravating factors

Insight – The Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory proceedings or provided any evidence of insight for the Panel to consider. Late guilty plea – The Panel noted the denial of the offence by the Registrant from his initial contact with the authorities until a few days before the trial date. The Panel agreed this initial denial demonstrated the Registrant’s rejection of accountability and added to the lack of insight on his behalf, which was of concern to the Panel. Remediation – The Panel had no evidence that the Registrant had remediated his behaviour as he had failed to engage with the HCPC proceedings; he had voluntarily absented himself from attending the hearing and had not made any written or oral submissions. Vulnerability of Person A – The Panel agreed this was an aggravating feature in light of the circumstances of the offence. They noted she was in a public place, in a state of undress and caring for her own child at the time when the Registrant violated her dignity, privacy and sense of safety by the actions he ultimately admitted. Harm – The Panel considered the impact of the Registrant’s actions on Person A, the Judge’s sentencing remarks noted that she was outraged and suffered flashbacks as a result of the incident. Dishonesty – The Panel noted the Registrant had not simply denied the offence when challenged by the authorities, but he had falsely blamed his own child who he initially stated was responsible for using the mobile device concerned. The Panel agreed that this dishonesty and attempt to deflect blame was a seriously aggravating factor in this case. Sexual motivation – The admission to the offence of voyeurism confirmed the Registrant had committed the actions for his own sexual gratification. The Panel agreed this was a seriously aggravating factor in light of his profession as a Paramedic and his involvement with vulnerable members of the public, some of who would be in a state of undress.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.