Steven Douglas
Introduction
Steven Douglas is a paramedic who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number PA053379. On 7 October 2025, at the end of a two-day substantive hearing, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) struck him off the register. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired on personal and public grounds by reason of his conviction at Hamilton Sheriff Court for 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, and imposed an 18-month interim suspension to cover any appeal.
Background Information
The published record identifies Douglas as a paramedic holding HCPC registration PA053379. The determination window does not name an employer or describe his training or career, 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
Convictions are facts; striking-off is the regulatory consequence. The conviction below is a criminal fact, recorded at Hamilton Sheriff Court. What the HCPTS panel assessed at this hearing was its regulatory consequence: whether the conviction impaired Douglas’s fitness to practise and, if so, what sanction was required. The determination does not state the sentence imposed.
The conviction concerned indecent images of children: taking, permitting to be taken, or making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, contrary to section 52(1)(a) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In plain terms, “making” in such offences reaches material that comes to be held on a device, and the aggravating findings here were consistent with that: the panel recorded that police used the date of purchase of Douglas’s laptop as the start point because none could otherwise be identified. The allegation was that fitness to practise was impaired by reason of the conviction, and the panel found it proved.
The aggravating findings set out the scale. The offending took place over a number of years — the exact period contested, Douglas saying police could not identify a start date and used the laptop’s purchase date instead — but the panel noted the number of images, well over 2,000, a proportion accessed more than once, indicating offending likely over a substantial period. Children, it found, are a particularly vulnerable population, and some children in the images had been as young as one year old. The actions were pre-meditated and involved a degree of planning, and there was a significant number of category A images — the most serious classification. Alongside this sat a lack of apology, remediation and insight, with Douglas continuing to deny the conduct relating to the conviction.
The only mitigating factor recorded was that there had been no direct harm to service users — the offending being separate from his clinical work. The panel nonetheless found impairment on both personal and public grounds: 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.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements from Douglas or any other party. The concrete consequences are the striking-off direction of 7 October 2025 and the 18-month interim suspension covering the appeal period. Because the case turned on a conviction, the panel did not re-examine the underlying events; its work was to weigh what the conviction, and the scale recorded within it, meant for continued registration. The numbers dominated that assessment: well over 2,000 images accumulated over years, a significant proportion in category A, some involving children as young as one. His continued denial meant the only mitigating feature — no direct harm to service users — carried the case alone.
Current Status
Douglas was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 7 October 2025, with an 18-month interim suspension in place during the appeal period. That interim order bridges the appeal window, keeping the sanction effective while any appeal is decided. His MedicWatch profile records 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, including whether any appeal was pursued.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Douglas’s registration and his ability to work as a paramedic in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The case illustrates a hard category in fitness-to-practise law: where a registrant continues to deny the conduct underlying a conviction, panels cannot find insight or remediation, and the pathway back closes before it opens. The absence of direct harm to service users, though genuinely recorded in mitigation, addresses only one slice of the risk a panel must manage. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.