Senior Paramedic dismissed for reacting to patient assault: flawed investigation led to unfair dismissal
An NHS Trust unfairly dismissed a Senior Paramedic with 18 years' service after he reacted to being struck by a patient. The tribunal found the investigation failed to properly assess witness credibility and withheld key evidence, awarding £49,314.66.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #assault-on-patient
- #flawed-investigation
- #credibility-of-witness
- #acas-code-uplift
- #patient-care-record
Key facts
- The claimant was a Senior Paramedic employed by the respondent from 7 November 2004 until 17 February 2022.
- On 19 August 2021, the claimant was struck by a 14-year-old patient and reacted by striking the patient.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct based on an allegation of intentional assault.
- The investigating officer did not adequately test the credibility of the key witness, Mr Johnson, whose accounts were inconsistent.
- The patient care record, which supported the claimant's version of events, was not disclosed during the disciplinary process.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded compensation of £49,314.66 with a 10% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a Senior Paramedic.
-
Incident with patient
While attending a 14-year-old intoxicated patient, the claimant was struck by the patient and reacted by striking the patient. The colleague Mr Johnson was present.
-
Initial reports
Both the claimant and Mr Johnson reported to the SPOC that the claimant had been assaulted by the patient. No mention of the claimant assaulting the patient.
-
Mr Johnson's second account
Mr Johnson provided a second account via email from Mr Paddy, alleging the claimant intentionally struck the patient with a clenched fist.
-
Mr Johnson's third account
Mr Johnson sent an email with further allegations including road rage and driving at speed.
-
Investigatory meeting
The claimant attended an investigatory meeting with investigating officer Mr Dixon.
-
Mr Johnson's questionnaire
Mr Johnson provided written answers to a questionnaire, repeating the allegation of intentional assault and adding other allegations.
-
Investigation report
Mr Dixon produced an investigation report recommending the matter proceed to a disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Ashford found all allegations proven.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct effective from this date.
-
Appeal submitted
The claimant appealed the dismissal.
-
Liability hearing starts
The employment tribunal heard the claim over four days.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Forde found the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal determined compensation.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded £49,314.66 including a 10% ACAS uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation into an alleged assault on a patient was reasonable, and whether the dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The investigating officer failed to properly assess the credibility of the main witness, Mr Johnson, whose accounts changed over time.
- The patient care record, which supported the claimant's version of events, was not disclosed during the disciplinary process.
- The dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £13,872.00
- Compensatory award: £35,442.66
- Total: £49,314.66 (including a 10% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code of Practice)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must thoroughly investigate credibility issues when a key witness provides inconsistent accounts.
- Withholding evidence that supports the employee's case can render a dismissal unfair.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a particularly thorough investigation before dismissal.
- A 10% ACAS uplift can significantly increase compensation if the employer fails to follow the disciplinary code.
When a reflex reaction leads to dismissal
A Senior Paramedic with 18 years of unblemished service lost his job after instinctively reacting to being struck by a 14-year-old patient. The incident, which lasted seconds, led to an allegation of intentional assault and a gross misconduct dismissal. But the tribunal found that the employer's investigation was so flawed that the dismissal was unfair.
What went wrong in the investigation
The key witness, a colleague who had never worked with the paramedic before, gave three different accounts of the incident. The first report made no mention of an assault by the paramedic. Only later, after speaking with a manager, did the witness allege the paramedic had struck the patient with a clenched fist. The investigating officer did not challenge these inconsistencies or explore possible motives, such as a personal dispute over the witness's partner.
Crucially, the patient care record — which supported the paramedic's version that the patient had struck first — was never disclosed during the disciplinary process. The dismissing officer relied on the witness's later accounts without seeing this key document.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case shows that even in serious misconduct allegations, employers must follow a fair process. A reasonable investigation requires testing witness credibility, disclosing all relevant evidence, and considering the employee's long service and clean record. The tribunal awarded £49,314.66, including a 10% uplift for breaching the ACAS Code of Practice — a reminder that procedural failures can be costly.
Similar cases
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.