Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS cautions Joshua Sharp for three years over patient photographs

The HCPTS panel found misconduct and dishonesty but recognised complete insight and remediation. It imposed a caution on public-interest grounds, finding no current personal impairment.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 12 June 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Warning (formally warned) — 3 years

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “formally warned” mean?

A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.

Concerning Joshua Sharp, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA46015).

Decision date: 12 June 2026 · Hearing started 10 June 2026 and ended 12 June 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel imposed a three-year caution on Joshua Sharp after he admitted taking and sharing photographs of a deceased patient and dishonestly asking a colleague to take responsibility. The panel found misconduct and impairment on public-interest grounds. It found no current personal impairment, recognising his complete insight, remorse, remediation and an extremely low risk of repetition. It considered suspension disproportionate.

Charges

Allegations concerned taking and sharing photographs of a deceased patient on 4 February 2022, and dishonestly asking a colleague to take responsibility for taking the photographs to avoid sanction.

Findings

The panel proved all factual particulars 1–6 by admission and found misconduct. It found no current personal impairment, recognising complete insight, genuine remorse, remediation and an extremely low risk of repetition. It found impairment on public-interest grounds because of the seriousness of the misconduct and dishonesty. It imposed a three-year caution, finding suspension or striking off disproportionate in the circumstances.

Mitigating factors

• The awful act of taking and distributing images was spontaneous and unplanned, albeit unpleasant and discreditable. • The Registrant’s dishonesty was not sustained or repeated, nor was it followed up by any attempt to compel his colleagues to act on his proposed deception and cover-up. • The Registrant had then been open and honest in the workplace investigation and with the HCPC throughout. • There was no other evidence of dishonesty in any other context in the Registrant’s professional career. • The Registrant had apologised, shown remorse and taken remedial action to restore public trust and confidence in him and the Paramedic profession. The Registrant’s reflections had been insightful and he was supported by senior colleagues who vouched for his probity.

Aggravating factors

• The Registrant’s actions amounted to a breach of trust. This is a fundamental aspect of the relationship between Paramedics and patients by suggesting a disregard for the dignity and care of patients at a vulnerable time in their lives. Patients might hesitate to trust a paramedic who treat patients without the dignity they deserve. The lack of thought for the feelings of the deceased’s family members and the wider public was a significant departure from the standards expected of a Paramedic. • The Registrant’s actions had the potential for serious adverse consequences for a junior colleague, had they followed the Registrant’s instruction to lie and cover for him. • No other factor mentioned as an aggravation in the sanctions policy were present in this case, such as repetition of concerns, lack of insight, lack of remediation, or potential for service user harm.

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.