The emergency worker was spotted driving a vehicle into the car park, before getting into the back of an ambulance alongside a male colleague.
CCTV footage confirms that the pair were “either engaging in, or about to engage, in sexual activity”.
The ambulance was seen “swaying from side to side quite significantly’” according to the footage obtained from the scene.
According to the tribunal, the pair were uncovered in the back of the emergency vehicle in a “state of undress” by two security guards, who found the male’s trousers undone and shoes off, with the male seen doing up his belt as guards shone a light into the space.
In April 2019, both Croydon and her colleague were dismissed from the emergency services for gross misconduct.
Her career with South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation trust started in 2015 as a healthcare professional technician.
She began working as an ambulance care assistant in 2016, before taking sick leave in September 2018.
Three months into the sick leave was when the incident in question took place.
She was seen driving an unmarked car into the Portsmouth FC car park, while a male colleague drove the ambulance that the pair were caught in.
The vehicles were parked next to one another, before the pair went into the back of the vehicle and were caught with the man’s shirt “untucked” and with his “belt undone”.
The worker argued that the ambulance service’s procedure was “flawed” and “dishonest”, and claimed that the guards had lied about what they had seen.
Employment judge Maxwell Charles Craft, who was head of the panel at the tribunal rebuked her claims stating: ‘[The security guards] were trusted, longstanding employees of the football club and were not known to Miss Croydon.
“She admitted she did not know of any reason why they would lie about what had happened. Their account was supported by the CCTV evidence”.
The tribunal also heard that the actions of the emergency worker included “inappropriate use of trust property” and that her conduct was likely to offend “patients, other employees, visitors or the general public” and that it “had potential to impact on the reputation of the trust”.