Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/13319031.Pervert_paramedic_tried_to_force_woman_to_perform_oral_sex_in_back_of_ambulance___hearing_told/
A paramedic who tried to force a patient to perform oral sex on him as she lay helpless on a stretcher in the back of his ambulance faces being kicked out of the profession.
William Mitchell, 58, rubbed the woman's breasts under her clothes before unzipping his trousers and exposing himself.
Mitchell then forced her hand on to his manhood and shoved her head towards his crotch as she fought for breath, a Health Care Professions Council tribunal heard.
The patient was being rushed to hospital on 18 April 2013 because she was struggling to breathe, but was discharged later the same day.
After the woman complained Mitchell failed to attend an internal disciplinary hearing and resigned from the North East Ambulance Service.
'Mr Mitchell and an emergency support worker were sent to the address in an ambulance, a rapid response vehicle was also dispatched.
'The support worker drove the vehicle, while Mr Mitchell stayed in the rear of the vehicle alone with Patient "A" whilst the ambulance was in transit.'
Mitchell was captured on the ambulance's interior CCTV rubbing his crotch against the woman and pushing his hands under her clothing before exposing himself to her.
Mitchell denied any wrongdoing to both police and his employers, but admitted misconduct in a public office at Durham Crown Court in December 2013.
But the conviction was later quashed on a technicality in February 2014 by three senior judges sitting at the Court of Appeal.
Sir Brian Leveson ruled that Mitchell should not have been charged with misconduct in a public office as he was not a 'public official'.
The patient said after Mitchell's successful appeal: 'It's absolutely disgraceful.
He pleaded guilty yet he has got off with it'.
'His conviction is quashed but it's still my life.
It's still me that it's happened to.'
He admitted exposing himself to the patient, pushing her head towards his exposed penis, placing her hand on his groin area and rubbing her breasts.
A paramedic who tried to force a patient to perform oral sex on him as she lay helpless on a stretcher in the back of his ambulance faces being kicked out of the profession.
William Mitchell, 58, rubbed the woman's breasts under her clothes before unzipping his trousers and exposing himself.
Mitchell then forced her hand on to his manhood and shoved her head towards his crotch as she fought for breath, a Health Care Professions Council tribunal heard.
The patient was being rushed to hospital on 18 April 2013 because she was struggling to breathe, but was discharged later the same day.
After the woman complained Mitchell failed to attend an internal disciplinary hearing and resigned from the North East Ambulance Service.
'Mr Mitchell and an emergency support worker were sent to the address in an ambulance, a rapid response vehicle was also dispatched.
'The support worker drove the vehicle, while Mr Mitchell stayed in the rear of the vehicle alone with Patient "A" whilst the ambulance was in transit.'
Mitchell was captured on the ambulance's interior CCTV rubbing his crotch against the woman and pushing his hands under her clothing before exposing himself to her.
Mitchell denied any wrongdoing to both police and his employers, but admitted misconduct in a public office at Durham Crown Court in December 2013.
But the conviction was later quashed on a technicality in February 2014 by three senior judges sitting at the Court of Appeal.
Sir Brian Leveson ruled that Mitchell should not have been charged with misconduct in a public office as he was not a 'public official'.
The patient said after Mitchell's successful appeal: 'It's absolutely disgraceful.
He pleaded guilty yet he has got off with it'.
'His conviction is quashed but it's still my life.
It's still me that it's happened to.'
He admitted exposing himself to the patient, pushing her head towards his exposed penis, placing her hand on his groin area and rubbing her breasts.
Show More
How do judges live with themselves after making a decision like that?
The guy should be facing a significant custodial sentence.
The guy should be facing a significant custodial sentence.
Another stellar example of The Majesty of the Law in action in Britain.
That's the prosecutions fault for bringing the wrong charge against him.
He doesn't have to be a public official to be tried for what he did.
Can't he be tried on another charge?
He doesn't have to be a public official to be tried for what he did.
Can't he be tried on another charge?
The justice system can be so up itself that the system can sometimes be deemed more important than the crime.
Remember reading about a case a few years ago (it was also featured on a crimewatch type programme) where a 68 year old woman woke up to find a
black man in her bedroom (his colour may or may not have had a bearing on the decision?)
The woman was anally raped, and although the police had a semen sample, and a good idea of the suspect, they had no other evidence to arrest him.
They decided to arrest him on another charge, and took a cheek swab, which confirmed the DNA matched the semen sample, so it was 99.99pc sure he was the rapist.
The judge threw out the case as he deemed that the arrest was made on a trumped up charge for the sole purpose of obtaining a DNA swab.
The woman died 6 months later.
Remember reading about a case a few years ago (it was also featured on a crimewatch type programme) where a 68 year old woman woke up to find a
black man in her bedroom (his colour may or may not have had a bearing on the decision?)
The woman was anally raped, and although the police had a semen sample, and a good idea of the suspect, they had no other evidence to arrest him.
They decided to arrest him on another charge, and took a cheek swab, which confirmed the DNA matched the semen sample, so it was 99.99pc sure he was the rapist.
The judge threw out the case as he deemed that the arrest was made on a trumped up charge for the sole purpose of obtaining a DNA swab.
The woman died 6 months later.
Hopefully someone took him out later....with extreme prejudice.
The judge threw out the case as he deemed that the arrest was made on a trumped up charge for the sole purpose of obtaining a DNA swab.
Was it a trumped up charge?
Was it a trumped up charge?
A paramedic who tried to force a patient to perform oral sex on him as she lay helpless on a stretcher in the back of his ambulance faces being kicked out of the profession.
' faces being kicked out ' ?
I sincerely hope that it's not a matter of if , but when . The way this case has been administered is shocking, to say the least. They have CCTV evidence, and yet feel justified in throwing it out because of a technicality ! The law is indeed an ass.
' faces being kicked out ' ?
I sincerely hope that it's not a matter of if , but when . The way this case has been administered is shocking, to say the least. They have CCTV evidence, and yet feel justified in throwing it out because of a technicality ! The law is indeed an ass.
a woman in distress and needing to be rushed to hospital and all he can think of is playing with er tits. great.
Would have thought the police need help from the judiciary - not case slung out coz DNA was obtained by 'trumped up charge'.
After the woman complained Mitchell failed to attend an internal disciplinary hearing and resigned from the North East Ambulance Service.
how can he face being kicked out if he has already left the service?
how can he face being kicked out if he has already left the service?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539