A respected paramedic who secretly took pictures of youngsters laying on the beach was jailed for 14 months today after being found with nearly 2,000 child abuse images.
Ernest Doidge, 53, worked for the NHS for 12 years and was involved in fundraising activities for local charities
Health professions council Hearings and decisions – Outcome: Struck off
Your fitness to practise as a registered health professional is impaired by reason of your conviction in that:
1) On 12 May 2008 at City of Westminster Magistrates Court you pleaded guilty to charges of: a) making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child x14, b) taking indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child x5.
2) On 18 June at Southwark Crown Court you were: a) sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, b) ordered to remain on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years, c) disqualified from working with children.
Decision on Facts, Misconduct and Impairment:
The Registrant, Ernest Doidge, did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been properly served on him at his registered address and at his prison address. No reply had been received from him and it was noted that he had not been in contact with the Health Professions Council concerning the allegations or today’s hearing. After careful consideration, the Panel determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence in terms of rules 6 and 11 of The Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.
The Panel considered all the evidence contained in the bundle and noted the submission of Ms. Proudlock on behalf of the Health Professions Council.
The allegations in this case are concerned with the Registrant’s conviction on 12 May 2008 of 14 counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children and 5 counts of taking an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children. He was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to 14 month’s imprisonment on 18 June 2008. A copy of the certificate of conviction was put before the Panel.
The Panel had before it the written evidence of DC William MacLean. It was his evidence that the Registrant had been the subject of an investigation into the making of indecent images of children by the Registrant via the internet. On 11 September 2007, the Registrant had been arrested. His two computers, digital cameras and a flash card had been found to contain a substantial number of indecent images of children which ranged in seriousness from level 1 to level 5 on the Oliver scale. It was his evidence that the charges against the Registrant were representative charges to avoid the necessity of particularising every count.
The Panel accepted that the Registrant was the person named in the Certificate of Conviction and found the facts as stated in the allegation were well-founded. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour had fallen short of the Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics of the Health Professions Council and in particular paragraphs 3 (keeping high standards of personal conduct) and 16 (making sure that your behaviour does not damage your professions reputation) and accordingly found that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired by reason of his conviction.
Decision on Sanction:
Behaviour of the kind for which the Registrant has been convicted undermines public confidence in the health professions and brings those professions into disrepute. It also raises serious concerns about the protection of the public and in particular children who may need his services. The primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which a health professional may pose to those who use or need his or her services. The Panel was conscious that in reaching its decision, appropriate weight must be given to wider public interest considerations, including the deterrent effect to other health professionals, the reputation of the profession concerned and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel had regard to the fact that a custodial order had been made against the Registrant and to the terms of the Registrant’s conviction that he must sign the sex offenders register for 10 years and was disqualified from working with children. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 5 of the Sexual Offences Prevention Order made by His Honour Judge Taylor that the Registrant will not “seek or gain employment where you are likely to have regular contact with any child under the age of 16”.
The Panel considered all the sanctions available to it under article 29 of the Health Professions Order 2001 and took into account the guidance contained in the Health Professions Council’s Indicative Sanctions Policy. The sanctions included taking no action, mediation, a caution order, a conditions of practice order, a suspension order and a striking off order. The Panel concluded that to take no action would not adequately protect the public and that mediation would serve no particular purpose in this case. The Panel considered that a caution order would not reflect the seriousness of the matter and that a conditions of practise order would be not be appropriate given the difficulty of framing suitable conditions. The Panel gave consideration to imposing a suspension order but concluded that it would not adequately protect the public or reflect the seriousness of the allegations. The Panel regards the matters giving rise to Mr. Doidge’s conviction as fundamentally incompatible with his remaining as a registered health professional, and having regard to what was said in the case of The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v. General Dental Council and Fleischmann, has decided that a striking off order should be made.
