Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS imposes five-month suspension on Stuart Morris for boundaries breach
The HCPTS panel accepted Stuart Morris's remediation and found no personal impairment, but imposed suspension on public-interest grounds following a professional-boundaries breach.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 24 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 5 months
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 Stuart Morris, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA051268).
Decision date: 24 August 2026 · Hearing started 19 August 2026 and ended 24 August 2026
In plain English
The HCPTS panel imposed a five-month suspension on paramedic Stuart Morris over a professional-boundaries breach while he was a student. He had visited a vulnerable patient privately and bought wine for him. The panel accepted his insight and remediation and found no personal impairment, but found impairment on public-interest grounds. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal process before the substantive order takes effect.
Charges
The registrant admitted breaching professional boundaries while a student paramedic in August 2019 by visiting a vulnerable patient at home in a personal capacity and buying wine for him. The panel found both particulars proved and that they amounted to serious misconduct.
Findings
The panel found no current personal impairment, accepting insight, remorse, remediation and a low risk of repetition. It nevertheless found impairment on the public component because the misconduct required a regulatory response to uphold standards and confidence. It imposed a five-month suspension. A separate interim suspension of up to 18 months covers the appeal period or an appeal and is not the substantive duration.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
a. the misconduct was an isolated incident seven years ago; b. the Registrant has reflected appropriately on his conduct and has developed insight into it; c. the Registrant was experiencing personal difficulties at the material time.
Aggravating factors
a. Patient 2 was particularly vulnerable; b. he maintained communication with Patient 2 after treating him; c. he took alcohol to a vulnerable patient knowing that he was going to end the relationship.
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.