David Ball
Introduction
David Ball is a paramedic who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number PA15381. On 30 May 2025, at the end of a substantive hearing that had opened on 7 May 2025, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) struck him off the register. The panel found that he had repeatedly subjected two junior female colleagues to sexual comments and unwanted touching, and had made a derogatory comment about a patient, in separate incidents in April 2023. It found his fitness to practise impaired, his insight limited, his remediation absent and the risk of repetition real, and concluded that striking off was the only sufficient sanction.
Background Information
The published record identifies Ball as a paramedic holding HCPC registration PA15381. It does not name his employer or ambulance trust, describe his training, or set out how long he had practised — beyond the panel’s acknowledgment of a “long history of public service as a Paramedic” — and this page does not guess at them. MedicWatch, an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators without editorialising their findings, carries his case with erasure (struck off the register) as his most recent published outcome, notes his registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current position.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Civil-standard findings, not criminal convictions. Nothing in the published record points to criminal proceedings. Everything proved below was proved by a regulatory panel to the civil standard — the balance of probabilities — and the findings belong to the panel, not to a court.
The charges concerned separate incidents in April 2023. Ball was alleged to have made repeated sexual and derogatory remarks to two junior female colleagues, to have touched them without consent, to have acted with sexual motivation, and to have spoken unprofessionally about a patient. These matters reached the HCPTS as allegations in regulatory proceedings; the published record contains no suggestion of any police investigation or criminal charge arising from them.
The panel found most particulars proved, including repeated sexual and sexually motivated conduct towards the two junior colleagues and a derogatory comment about a patient. In its plain-English summary of the outcome, MedicWatch records that the panel found Ball “repeatedly subjected two junior female colleagues to sexual comments and unwanted touching, and made a derogatory comment about a patient”. The record does not enumerate the individual particulars, name the witnesses, or identify which particulars, if any, were not proved; on that detail the published texts are silent, and this page does not reconstruct it.
On the findings it did make, the panel went on to find serious misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise on both personal and public grounds. The personal element reflected the misconduct itself; the public element reflected the need to maintain proper standards and to protect the public — the framework within which the panel then assessed sanction.
In mitigation the panel recorded an apology and some remorse expressed, and Ball’s long history of public service as a paramedic. Against that it set a heavier list in aggravation: the misconduct was repeated in relation to two different colleagues over a short space of time; it involved exploitation of a position of seniority; his insight was limited and there was no remediation; and the conduct caused distress to colleagues and carried potential harm to patients. Finding limited insight, no remediation and a real risk of repetition, the panel concluded that striking off was the only sufficient sanction.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record shows no public reaction beyond the tribunal coverage itself. The available sources are MedicWatch’s determination page and practitioner profile; neither records press coverage, comments from the colleagues, any union or professional-body statement, or any public statement from Ball beyond the apology and remorse the panel noted. Where reaction might ordinarily be recorded, the record is silent.
The concrete consequences came from the regulatory process itself. The panel weighed the apology and long service in mitigation against repetition across two different colleagues in a short period, the exploitation of seniority, and the absence of remediation, and found them insufficient: given the seriousness of the conduct and the need to protect the public, it treated striking off as the only sufficient sanction. The direct professional consequence was that his name was removed from the HCPC register. The record notes no other consequences — no criminal referral, no costs order and no reference to an appeal.
Current Status
Ball was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 30 May 2025, recorded as erasure (struck off the register). The direction removes him from the register, and he may not practise as a paramedic in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The published record does not note any interim order having been in place before the hearing. MedicWatch notes that the decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions, but those details are not reproduced in the available texts; his profile records his registration status as not yet verified and directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current position, including whether any appeal was pursued.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Ball’s registration and his ability to work as a paramedic in the UK unless restoration succeeds. The case shows how conduct directed at colleagues rather than patients still ends a registration: the panel’s concerns centred on repeated, sexually motivated conduct toward two junior colleagues and the exploitation of seniority over them. His apology and long history of public service were not enough against limited insight and no remediation, and the finding of a real risk of repetition framed him as an ongoing risk to the public. The record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.