David Lacy
Introduction
David Lacy is a paramedic registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) who worked for West Midlands Ambulance Service as a Band 6 paramedic and mentor. On 16 July 2026, after a substantive hearing spanning 14–16 July, an HCPC panel found that between 2018 and 2022 he made inappropriate comments to two junior female colleagues and, without her consent, touched one of them. It found sexual motivation for the comments to one colleague and for all but two of the comments to the other, found serious misconduct and current impairment, and suspended him for twelve months.
Background Information
Lacy’s front-line career began in South Africa more than 28 years before the hearing, first as a trainee and then a qualified paramedic in the Fire Service; he moved to the UK in 2014. He joined West Midlands Ambulance Service as a student paramedic in 2015, qualified in December 2019 and became a clinical team mentor in April 2021. The service told him of the complaints on 28 April 2022 and suspended him from duty the same day; its internal disciplinary hearing followed on 5 July 2022. The HCPC referral came not from the employer but from a fellow paramedic, received on 10 July 2022.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Suspended for sexual comments and touching a junior colleague. An HCPC panel found proved that Lacy made inappropriate comments to two junior colleagues between 2018 and 2022 and touched and grabbed one colleague’s bottom and stroked her leg without her consent. The comments and touching were found sexually motivated, except for two comments to the second colleague.
The first colleague, anonymised in the determination as Witness C, was a junior crew member Lacy later mentored. Between around March 2020 and March 2022, the panel found, he asked whether she was on contraception and said he was glad she was; remarked it was better now she was pregnant because he could not get her pregnant; said they should give it a go now she had no boyfriend; commented on her “cute bum”; suggested that if they shut the door no one would see anything; proposed pulling over to have sex where no one would know; and invited her to his house to sleep together. Every comment was found proved and sexually motivated. The panel accepted that Witness C had appeared to acquiesce rather than sour the working relationship, and rejected the idea that this made the conduct welcome.
On or around 31 March 2022, while Witness C took readings from a service user in the back of an ambulance, he touched and grabbed her bottom and stroked her calf and thigh without her consent — a junior crew member saw her suddenly stand and move away. The panel found the touching objectively sexual and gratifying, and very serious misconduct: it interrupted observations and risked their accuracy and the service user’s care. It also rejected as victim blaming the suggestion that Witness C’s flirtatiousness explained his actions.
The second colleague, Witness D, was an apprentice working under a mentor–student power imbalance. Between around January 2018 and April 2022, the panel found, he told her she was his “cup of tea”, asked her bra size, referred to her Facebook holiday pictures in “short shorts”, and told her to make sure she uploaded bikini pictures. All four were found proved as facts, but the panel split on motive: the bra-size question and the bikini instruction were sexually motivated, while the “cup of tea” remark, made in front of others, and the holiday-photo comment were found not sexually motivated — though both were judged inappropriate. Witness D told the panel that “Mr Lacy regularly alluded to wanting to have sex with me”.
Treating them as a continuum, the panel found serious misconduct in the sexual comments and the touching, and current impairment on personal and public grounds. It accepted Lacy’s apology, remorse, engagement and developing insight, but found meaningful remediation lacking — he had adopted an avoidance strategy that did not address the underlying behaviour. Aggravating factors included the real harm to Witness C, years of distress to both colleagues, and his failure to grasp the power imbalance that left junior colleagues unable to speak up. In mitigation were his apology from April 2022, full engagement, no clinical issues, and a finding that his behaviour stemmed from serious misjudgement rather than a grooming and predatory nature.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The gravity of the case shaped the hearing itself: special measures were granted after Witness D described increasing anxiety about giving evidence, and Lacy left the virtual hearing room so his camera could be switched off while she testified. The panel found both colleagues had suffered distress over many years, and that their junior, vulnerable positions had left them unable to speak up for themselves. It also observed that the conduct had been allowed to develop and flourish in a culture where it was never checked. Among the references before the panel were five from former female colleagues, who described a good practitioner. MedicWatch records the outcome in its listing of suspensions.
Current Status
Lacy was suspended for twelve months by the decision dated 16 July 2026. The panel barred him from applying for an early review during the first ten months, judging that meaningful reflection and personal development would take at least that long; it considered striking off disproportionate given his engagement and willingness to undertake personal remediation. An existing interim suspension relating to a different matter remains in place. For any future review, the panel pointed to detailed reflective writing, in-person training on professional boundaries and equality, diversity and inclusion, evidence of strategies other than avoidance, and continuing professional development. His current registration status should be checked against the official HCPC register.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Lacy has not worked in the profession since his suspension from duty in April 2022, and the panel noted he had since been in gainful employment outside it. The proceedings took more than four years to conclude, and the panel acknowledged the professional and financial impact — paramedics have a truncated window to keep their competencies up to date, and he would need considerable retraining before seeking any role using his registration. That impact, it concluded, was outweighed by the need to protect service users and fellow practitioners. The suspension caps a front-line career of more than 28 years.