Mitchell, R v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL DBE
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case examines whether a paramedic employed by the NHS holds a public office and is therefore liable for misconduct in public office. The accused, William Mitchell, was initially found guilty in the Crown Court. His conviction was later quashed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that paramedics do not hold public office as their duty is owed to the individual patient, and the public interest does not extend beyond this individual duty.
J U D G M E N T
PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION: Is a paramedic employed by a National Health Service Trust in its ambulance service the holder of a public office so as to be subject to criminal sanction for misconduct?
On 9th December 2013 in the Crown Court at Durham, the Recorder of Durham, His Honour Judge Prince, answering the question in the affirmative, declined to dismiss such a charge alleged to have been committed in these circumstances. As a result, the applicant, William Mitchell, pleaded guilty to the offence. The Registrar has referred his application for leave to appeal against conviction to the full court, based upon the ground that Judge Prince erred in law and should have answered in the negative. We grant leave.
The facts can be shortly summarised. The North East Ambulance Trust ("the Trust") is an NHS Trust which provides a public benefit by way of the provision of emergency healthcare to those in its catchment area who require assistance. In doing so, the Trust fulfils one of the responsibilities of government to provide healthcare services to the public.
Mr Mitchell was employed as a paramedic by the Trust, responsible for manning an ambulance which responded to emergency and other calls for assistance.
On 18th April 2013, in the company of a colleague, Mr Mitchell attended the address of a 58-year-old lady to answer an emergency call. The lady had been behaving in a volatile and rather bizarre manner. In a journey lasting some 30 minutes, she was transported to hospital by ambulance with Mr Mitchell in the rear of the vehicle in order to carry out his duties as a paramedic. The driver was unsighted as to what was happening in the rear of the ambulance.
When the patient later arrived home and, again, the following day, 19th April, when again she was being transported by ambulance, she made a complaint that the paramedic who had previously looked after her in the rear of the ambulance had repeatedly touched her breasts, removed his penis from his trousers and placed her hand on his penis. Examination of the CCTV of the rear of the ambulance entirely corroborated the essential elements of this complaint. That Mr Mitchell failed to conduct himself in accordance with his duty both to the patient and to his employers is beyond argument and he has since ceased to be employed by the Trust.
Miss Alison Levitt Q.C. for the Crown accepts that prosecutors should generally charge a statutory offence when one is available and, altho