Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Jonathon Wilson-Wilcox for sustained dishonesty
The paramedic repeatedly misled his employer about university study, accepted pay for attendance days and failed to complete court-ordered repayments.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 11 September 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 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 Jonathon Wilson-Wilcox, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA35484).
Decision date: 11 September 2025 · Hearing started 8 September 2025 and ended 11 September 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that paramedic Jonathon Wilson-Wilcox repeatedly and dishonestly misled his employer about attending prescribing courses, accepted pay for study days he did not use, and failed to comply fully with court-ordered repayments. It found limited insight, incomplete remediation and a risk of repetition. Concluding that the dishonesty was at the serious end of the scale, it struck him off.
Charges
Mr Wilson-Wilcox was alleged to have misled his employer into believing he was attending non-medical prescribing courses, taken paid time off for university attendance when he was not enrolled, and accepted salary for those days. He was also alleged to have dishonestly failed to comply with court orders requiring repayment.
Findings
The panel proved all particulars and found sustained, repeated dishonesty amounting to serious misconduct. It found that Mr Wilson-Wilcox breached a fundamental professional tenet, brought the profession into disrepute and remained at risk of repeating dishonest conduct. With limited insight and remediation and money still outstanding, the panel found impairment on personal and public grounds.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No direct harm was caused to patients; during the employer's investigation the Registrant indicated some remorse; and he had repaid some of the money.
Aggravating factors
The Registrant abused the Practice's trust, compounded his original misconduct by falsely claiming enrolment with another university, failed to repay the money fully despite court proceedings, and engaged in sustained and repeated misconduct over a significant period.
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.