Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Paramedic suspended for 12 months over conduct towards junior colleagues

The panel found sexual misconduct and incomplete remediation. It imposed a 12-month suspension, with no application for early review permitted during the first ten months.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 16 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning David Lacy, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA44269).

Decision date: 16 July 2026 · Hearing started 14 July 2026 and ended 16 July 2026

In plain English

The panel suspended paramedic David Lacy for 12 months after finding inappropriate sexual comments and non-consensual touching of a junior colleague. Sexual motivation was not proved for two other comments. The panel accepted his remorse and developing insight, but found his remediation insufficient. It considered striking off disproportionate and barred an application for early review during the first ten months. An existing interim suspension concerned a separate matter.

Charges

Allegations concerned inappropriate comments to two junior female colleagues between 2018 and 2022, non-consensual touching of one colleague around 31 March 2022, and sexual motivation.

Findings

The panel found the factual comments and non-consensual touching proved. Sexual motivation was proved except for two comments to Witness D concerning being his cup of tea and holiday photographs. It found serious misconduct in the touching and sexual comments, and current impairment on both personal and public grounds. It accepted apology, remorse, engagement and developing insight, but found meaningful remediation and fuller understanding of the power imbalance lacking; avoidance alone did not address the underlying behaviour. There were no clinical issues. The panel considered striking off disproportionate and ordered 12 months' suspension, prohibiting an application for early review during the first ten months. The decision records an existing interim suspension relating to a different matter; no additional interim order was sought in this case.

Mitigating factors

• The Registrant had offered an apology and expressed remorse and regret at the earliest moment in April 2022 and had taken the opportunity at this hearing to restate those sentiments; • The Registrant had fully engaged in the HCPC process and had gone to some lengths to engage in this hearing whilst undertaking conflicting work commitments; • There were no clinical issues, and the Registrant is described by former colleagues as a good practitioner; • The Registrant was able to demonstrate some insight into his former behaviour, however this was of a limited nature; • The Registrant appeared to have identified and accepted that there were aspects of his character that demonstrated ingrained behaviour; • The Registrant’s behaviour appeared to stem from serious misjudgement of the situation rather than being of a grooming and predatory nature of behaviour; • His conduct had been allowed to continue within a culture where such behaviour had been allowed to develop and flourish. This meant that there had been no previous steps taken to check or monitor the appropriateness of his conduct in the workplace. In this regard, the Panel noted that WMAS had not considered it appropriate and proportionate to make a referral of these issues which had involved internal disciplinary proceedings. The referral had come from a fellow practitioner.

Aggravating factors

• The Registrant has not been able, after four years, to demonstrate meaningful and developed insight into his former behaviour; • That the Registrant had not identified the need to change his personal approach when working in the UK even after having been here for many years. He had failed to recognise that the culture of South Africa in which he stated people directly addressed issues, may not be the case in the UK;• The Registrant had failed to understand right up until this hearing why Colleagues C and D had not spoken to him directly at the time. He had failed to appreciate and understand the existence of the power imbalance; • There had been real harm inflicted on Colleague C; • There had been the risk of service user harm arising from his actions and comments that had led to a colleague lacking focus when treating service users; • There had been next to no meaningful remediation other than the adoption of an avoidance strategy; • Colleagues C and D had both suffered distress over many years as a result of the unwanted and unwarranted behaviour and comments; • There had been a breach of professional boundaries between mentor and mentee and senior and junior staff; • That those involved were in a junior and therefore vulnerable position and unable due to those factors to speak up for themselves.

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.