Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS strikes off Steven Douglas after indecent images conviction
A paramedic was struck off after an HCPTS panel found his conviction involving indecent images of children incompatible with continued registration.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 7 October 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 Steven Douglas, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA053379).
Decision date: 7 October 2025 · Hearing started 6 October 2025 and ended 7 October 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that Steven Douglas's fitness to practise was impaired following his conviction for an offence involving indecent images of children. It found an ongoing risk, no insight or remediation, and conduct incompatible with registration, and struck him off.
Charges
Steven Douglas was convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Court of taking, permitting to be taken, or making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to section 52(1)(a) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Findings
The panel found the conviction proved and Steven Douglas's fitness to practise impaired on personal and public grounds. It found an inherent risk to children, no demonstrated rehabilitation or insight, continued denial of the conduct, and serious damage to public confidence. It directed that he be struck off and imposed an 18-month interim suspension to cover any appeal.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
there had been no direct harm to service users
Aggravating factors
The duration of the offending, which took place over a number of years. Whilst the exact period was contested (the Registrant saying that the police could not identify a start date so used the date of purchase of the laptop), the number of images, well over 2,000, a proportion of which had been accessed more than once, indicated that the offending had likely taken place over a substantial period of time; Children are a particularly vulnerable population, and some children in the images had been as young as one year old; The Registrant’s actions were pre-meditated and involved a degree of planning; There were a significant number of category A images; There had been a lack of apology, remediation and insight, with the Registrant continuing to deny the conduct relating to the conviction.
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.