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

On 3 April 2025, following a further hearing at which the appellant continued to be represented by Counsel, the Tribunal gave its decision on sanction. It took into account the evidence received during the earlier stages of the proceedings and a “reflective statement” from the appellant dated 26 March 2025.

In its detailed written reasons, the Tribunal set out the parties’ submissions at length. It confirmed that it had had regard to:

The Tribunal considered that there were a number of aggravating factors, as follows:

As regards mitigating factors, the Tribunal held:

“42.

Dr Haroon has had no previous fitness to practise history and no previous criminal convictions. There has also been no indication of any further concern in these regards.

43.

The Tribunal acknowledged the testimonials provided in support of Dr Haroon. However, given the behaviour underlying the conviction, these testimonials were given minimal weight in the Tribunal’s consideration of the appropriate sanction to impose.

44.

The Tribunal has taken into account the reflective statement provided by Dr Haroon and notes the further reflections, which do not materially change or advance the Tribunal’s findings at the impairment stage in relation to remorse, insight and remediation.”

In accordance with the Guidance, the Tribunal then considered the various possible outcomes in ascending order of seriousness. It determined that neither taking no action nor imposing conditions of registration would be appropriate. It is not in dispute that these less serious sanctions would not mark the seriousness of the appellant’s impairment.

As regards a more serious sanction, the Tribunal considered the guidance on suspension. It rejected the imposition of a suspension for the following reasons:

“54.

The Tribunal considered that it has no evidence before it as to whether or not remediation may be successful, as Dr Haroon continues to deny the offence and maintains his innocence... [T]he Tribunal has already determined that there are some factors which mean that Dr Haroon may be less likely to repeat such conduct, however, there remains a risk of repetition… [T]he Tribunal considered that Dr Haroon's conviction is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

55.

The Tribunal was mindful of the impact of erasure on Dr Haroon. It noted the submissions of [Counsel for Dr Haroon] that a finding of erasure may impact Dr Haroon’s future medical career and his immigration status. The Tribunal had regard to the possible related impact that this could have on his family relationships. Nonetheless, the public interest outweighs Dr Haroon’s interest in this regard, in circumstances where:

• there is a conviction for a serious criminal offence which has serious aggravating factors, particularly for a registered medical practitioner;

• the Tribunal has found that his conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

56.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a period of suspension would not be appropriate to sufficiently uphold the overarching objective.”

The Tribunal determined that the only appropriate sanction was one of erasure and held:

“61.

The Tribunal has found that Dr Haroon’s conviction is a serious breach of GMP and breached fundamental tenets of the medical profession. Members of the public and members of the profession would find the conduct deplorable and expect that the sanction would reflect the gravity of the offence.

62.

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal determined that a finding of erasure is essential to protect and promote the health, safety and wellbeing of the public, promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.

63.

Therefore, the Tribunal determined to erase Dr Haroon’s name from the Medical Register.”