AC-2025-CDF-000062 - [2025] EWHC 2619 (Admin)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2025

Impairment

Impairment

39.

In concluding that the appellant’s fitness to practise was impaired, the Tribunal gave weight to a number of factors, including:

The seriousness of the criminal offence which included acts of violence;

ii.

The fact that the appellant’s actions clearly brought the medical profession into disrepute;

iii.

The risk of repetition in the future;

iv.

The breach of fundamental tenets of the profession (reflected in paras 1 and 65 of GMP quoted above) that doctors should act within the law and retain the trust of patients and the public;

The appellant’s lack of genuine remorse towards his wife; and

vi.

The appellant’s lack of insight into his offending behaviour.

40.

The Tribunal considered that all of the three elements of the overarching objective were “engaged” and stated as follows:

“101…The Tribunal considered that a member of the public who heard of the facts of this case would be appalled, and victims of domestic violence might be less inclined to report their own personal circumstances to a doctor as a trusted professional. The Tribunal considered that a finding of impairment is therefore required to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public.
102.
The Tribunal was of the view that the public would expect doctors not to commit such a serious criminal offence.
103.
Dr Haroon's conduct falls so far short of what is expected from a doctor, and a finding of impairment is therefore required in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards and conduct.”

41.

For these reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction.