Benjamin Southam
Introduction
Benjamin Southam is a paramedic whose name stood on the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register under number PA51122. On 17 July 2026, at the close of a two-day substantive hearing held on 16 and 17 July 2026, a Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) panel found his fitness to practise impaired and ordered him struck off the register. The case arose from a conviction at Ipswich Crown Court on 19 June 2025, following a guilty plea, for voyeurism by recording a private act — filming a woman in a swimming-pool changing cubicle. The panel found the conviction proved, found impairment on both personal and public components, and concluded that a lesser sanction would not adequately protect the public or maintain professional confidence. It found no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition.
Background Information
The published record identifies Southam only as a paramedic registered with the HCPC as PA51122. It does not name an employer or ambulance service, does not say where he worked or lived, and gives no account of his career beyond the case. The offence was committed not in his clinical role but in a swimming-pool changing cubicle, where the victim — identified in the record only as Person A — was filmed. The record notes that he had been sentenced in the criminal proceedings before the HCPC case was heard, with a judge’s sentencing remarks forming part of the material the panel considered. No prior HCPC regulatory history is mentioned in the published record.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Benjamin Southam’s conviction for voyeurism is a matter of court record, and the panel found that conviction proved. Nothing in the regulatory findings below converts or displaces it; the regulatory assessments — such as findings on insight and remediation — are the tribunal’s determinations, not criminal findings.
The charge before the panel was “A conviction at Ipswich Crown Court on 19 June 2025, following a guilty plea, for voyeurism by recording a private act.” The offence involved filming a woman in a swimming-pool changing cubicle. The panel found the conviction proved and current impairment on both the personal and public components.
The panel’s reasons detail what it weighed. In mitigation, it acknowledged “Isolated incident”, though only “a limited amount of weight could be attached to this in light of the serious and sexually motivated nature of the incident”. The guilty plea “could have been a mitigating factor but attached no weight to this given the plea was only entered very late in the criminal proceedings, near to the start of the trial”. The judge’s remarks on remorse drew “very little weight” because he “had not engaged with the regulatory proceedings” and “had not expressed any remorse during his correspondence with the HCPC”.
Aggravating features were more numerous. He had denied the offence from initial contact with the authorities “until a few days before the trial date”, a denial the panel said demonstrated “the Registrant’s rejection of accountability”. More seriously, “he had falsely blamed his own child who he initially stated was responsible for using the mobile device concerned” — dishonesty the panel called “a seriously aggravating factor in this case”. Person A “was in a public place, in a state of undress and caring for her own child” when he violated her dignity, privacy and sense of safety; the judge’s sentencing remarks noted she was outraged and suffered flashbacks. The admission to voyeurism confirmed the actions were committed “for his own sexual gratification”, which the panel treated as seriously aggravating given his profession and his involvement with vulnerable members of the public, “some of who would be in a state of undress”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of either the criminal proceedings or the HCPC hearing, and no public statements from Southam, Person A or any employer. The consequences recorded are the criminal conviction itself and the striking-off order. MedicWatch, which maintains the practitioner-facing record of the decision, aggregates regulator outcomes and states it does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Current Status
Southam is struck off the HCPC register, the erasure having been decided on 17 July 2026. The panel ordered striking off “when the order takes effect”; the published record does not state that any appeal has been brought. In the published interim-order reasons the panel also concluded that interim suspension was necessary for public protection and the public interest; the final published sentence is incomplete, so no precise interim term is stated here. His MedicWatch profile records his registration status as not yet verified and directs readers to the official HCPC register for current status.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ends Southam’s ability to work as an HCPC-registered paramedic in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The panel’s findings — a sexually motivated offence, an initial denial, the false blaming of his own child, and his non-engagement with the regulatory process — record why it found no insight or remediation and “a high risk of repetition”. The record gives no information about the sentence passed at Ipswich Crown Court beyond the conviction and plea, and nothing on this page should be read as going beyond the published record.