NHS boss who cheated on paramedic wife had sex with lover during shift

A senior NHS paramedic has been suspended after he used company time to have sex with a woman he was having an affair with - behind the back of his wife who was also a paramedic.

Clinical leader Andrew Mackie turned up to his lover's home for sex while he was still in his uniform and on shift as part of their 'clandestine meetings', a misconduct hearing was told.

The pair deliberately schemed to avoid detection from Mr Mackie's wife - who worked at the same ambulance service as him - and another person connected to his lover whose identity was not revealed but was also a paramedic at the same service.

'Dishonest' Mr Mackie, an award-winning senior paramedic with the Scottish Ambulance Service [SAS], tried to evade being caught by parking at medical units near her home so he could go and visit her whilst on shift.

The misconduct hearing was told details about how their affair involved the use of sex toys, a fishnet bodysuit, and explicit images of sexual activity being taken with a camera.

Their fling eventually turned sour, with both of them hurling allegations at each other, leading to both of them being arrested. All accusations were dropped.

The Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service [HCPTS] has now suspended Mr Mackie for a year for visiting the woman's home to have sex while on duty.

Mr Mackie was a registered paramedic and frontline manager working within the SAS.

Having been employed as a paramedic since 1984 he had risen through the ranks to an area clinical leader and received long service awards for both 20 and 30 years of service.

The HCPTS heard Mr Mackie and the woman - named as 'Person A' - 'didn't have sex regularly' as their meet-ups required two other people - named as Persons B and C - to be at work.

The tribunal heard: "Person A confirmed that they had a sexual relationship with [Mr Mackie], that they didn’t have sex regularly because it was dependant on Person C and Person B being at work to enable clandestine meetings.

"Both Person C and Person B worked for SAS too.

"Person A confirmed that [Mr Mackie] was the driving force for the sexual activity."

The tribunal heard Mr Mackie and the woman once had sex at his house while he was home alone because Person C was on holiday.

Person A claimed that 'during the 18 months of their relationship they had become close and Mr Mackie wanted to leave Person C to be with them', adding that Mr Mackie had told her he 'loved her'.

CCTV footage obtained by Police Scotland showed that he had been at Person A's home address while he was on shift on two separate dates.

He would also park in different locations which were medical buildings near to Person A's house to avoid detection.

This meant that he was away from his response vehicle and would not be able to quickly respond to necessary actions due to a call out.

Both parties eventually made allegations against the other person.

Mr Mackie claimed that Person A 'commenced a campaign of stalking against him and his family' following their separation which led to a complaint to the police.

Person A was later arrested and made allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr Mackie, which led to him being arrested.

The allegations were dropped by police.

Mr Mackie accused Person A of 'threatening him, his career, family and friends', claiming that 'Person A coveted Person C’s life and wanted to take it for their own'.

He was sacked in December 2025, but started a new role with a different employer in March 2026.

The HCPTS suspended him for a year for visiting the woman while on shift, failing to notify his regulator about charges, and acted dishonestly by deleting emails to conceal updates about the investigation into him.

The chair of the hearing said: "[Mr Mackie] submitted that he had allowed his personal life to interfere with his work for which he apologised.

"[Mr Mackie] assured the Panel that he was and remained '100 per cent' reliable for work, family and service users and he did not pose any risk to any of them.

"The Panel considered that [Mr Mackie] had... accepted he was pursuing an affair with Person A.

"The Panel considered therefore, contrary to what [Mr Mackie] suggested, that he was not working during those visits, altering his status availability and were all part of the dishonest façade of the working pretence intended to accommodate his personal visits.

"The Panel was concerned that his attitudinal issues meant his thinking was clouded and he would be unable to engage suitable reasoning to address any similar future concerns.

"This was not a characteristic that would be conducive to a professional person such as a Paramedic."