Disgraced Yorkshire paramedic who fantasised about sexually abusing young girls is struck off
He will never work in healthcare again
A disgraced paramedic who discussed his plans to groom and sexually abuse the children of women he met on a swingers’ dating site has been struck off.
Gary Hutton, who worked for Yorkshire Ambulance Service since 1998, was jailed for 10 years in November 2025 after pleading guilty to two counts of attempting to arrange his vile fantasies.
Sheffield Crown Court heard how the 59-year-old struck up online conversations with three women, before asking if they were interested in breaking “taboos” - namely allowing him to sexually abuse their children.
However, one of the three women was an undercover police officer. When ‘she’ made out her daughter was just six years old, Hutton continued describing the graphic things he wanted to do undeterred.
Sentencing him, His Honour Judge David Dixon said: “You claimed this was no more than fantasy. I do not accept that.
“The kind of conversations you were having, the fact you were engaging with three different - as far as you were concerned - real women and purported it had happened before all leads to this being a genuine desire in your life. A genuine desire to have sex with a child.”
Now, as he approaches the end of his first year in prison at HMP Doncaster, Sutton has also formally been struck off from ever working as a paramedic again.
A tribunal by the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service heard Sutton had been exchanging messages about sexual activity with adults and their children while at work, including sharing photos of himself in his uniform in an ambulance.
Hutton, of Bootham Crescent, Stainforth, Doncaster, also repeatedly sent messages of a sexual nature while at work, which the panel scolded as "taking his attention away from those he was required to care for".
The report reads: “[Sutton has] failed to demonstrate insight or acknowledge the impact of his intended actions on the victims.
“For behaviour of this magnitude, with the potential to cause serious harm, the Panel considered that no lesser sanction than a striking off order was sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.”
He did not engage with the disciplinary process while in jail.