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

The Tribunal considered the appellant’s level of insight into his criminal conduct, holding as follows:

“72.

The Tribunal was mindful that, although it is a rare case that a doctor will have full insight where he has not accepted the conduct found proved against him, a denial is not an absolute bar to the development of insight.Dr Haroon accepts the gravity of such an offence, in so far as he understands the way in which society views his conduct as found proved. He has experienced damage to his reputation which is of regret to him, came close to an immediate custodial sentence and is still in the period of his suspended sentence benefitting from probation supervision. He may therefore be less likely to repeat such conduct…

77.

In his oral evidence before the Tribunal, Dr Haroon stated that he understood that there were things that he could and should have done differently and stated that he now has coping strategies to deal with difficult situations that may arise within a relationship. However, there was no evidence that he had identified strategies to prevent conflict resulting in violence. The Tribunal heard Dr Haroon’s evidence regarding the knowledge and insight he gained in therapy. He was able to provide the Tribunal with evidence that he has a clear understanding that in a relationship violence is ‘never the answer’ even if ‘frustrated’ or one thinks it is justified. He referred to violence as the most negative form of expression. However, although his learning was based on an understanding that violence is never acceptable, he had not done any specific work personal to him on how to prevent conflict escalating to violence.

78.

The Tribunal considered that Dr Haroon has insight into the gravity of violence in a relationship as something that is completely unacceptable. However, he has not demonstrated an understanding of a link between this insight and his actions in a relationship.

79.

Dr Haroon does not currently demonstrate an understanding of how he allowed himself to act as he did towards his ex-wife which included violence, and what he would do differently to prevent his use of violence in the future. Dr Haroon has failed to demonstrate to the Tribunal what he would do if he found himself in similar circumstances…

81.

The Tribunal noted that it was clear from his statement and oral evidence that Dr Haroon understands the broad areas of work that may help him to reduce his risk of violence. There is however no evidence that he has applied these generic ideas to his own particular behaviour nor explained his motivation(s) and trigger(s).

The Tribunal concluded that Dr Haroon only has limited insight” (emphasis added).