Nabeela Anjum

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel received a copy of the Notice of Hearing which was sent by email to the Registrant's registered email address and prison email address on 5 May 2025.
2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice.
3. The Panel noted that the email to the Registrant confirmed that the hearing would take place remotely via video conference. The date and time of the review hearing was confirmed in the Notice of Hearing. Copies
3
of all of the relevant papers were attached within the time limits specified in rule 3 of The Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee)(Procedure) Rules 2003 (the rules).
4. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served in accordance with the rules and in accordance with The Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules Order of Council 2021 which came into force on 4 March 2021, which provides express provision for the HCPC to serve notices via electronic email and hold hearings via audio and video link where necessary.
Part-in-Private application
5. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to hear part of this case in private where it was necessary to touch on references to
• the Registrant’s own health, and
• the Registrant’s child
which are both referred to in the judge’s sentencing remarks.
6. Ms Bass explained that the Registrant and other people referred to in the case had a right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Proceeding partly in private, as allowed in rule 8.
7. There were no submissions for or on behalf of the Registrant.
Panel’s Approach
8. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private last updated in February 2025.
9. The Panel had regard to the circumstances and the nature of the case. The Panel noted that the Practice Note states that proceedings shall be heard in public, subject to certain exceptions. The Panel considered that the exceptions which allowed the Panel to depart from the open justice principle included the rights to respect for private life of the Registrant and her family where mentioned in the case. The Panel considered that it was possible and proper to conduct parts of the hearing in private. The Panel ordered that the references to the health of the Registrant and references to her child should be discussed in private.
4
Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
10. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to move forward with the hearing without the Registrant under rule 11 which provides:
Where the Registrant is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the Committee may nevertheless proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of the hearing under rule 6(1) on the Registrant.
11. The Practice Note Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant last updated in June 2022 states that:
If the Panel is satisfied on the issue of notice, it must then decide whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, and balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.
12. Ms Bass submitted that the Registrant had received notice of the proceedings under the rules. The Registrant’s probation officer had confirmed in a phone call with the HCPC on 27 June 2025 that he had been in contact with her regarding this hearing and that he did not know what she intended to do. Ms Bass said that arrangements can be made for prisoners to go to hearings remotely but the Registrant had not asked for this.
13. Ms Bass submitted that all reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Registrant of this hearing. The Registrant was aware of this hearing and had consciously and voluntarily decided not to take part. It was in the public interest to bring this case despite the absence of the Registrant.
14. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and observed that the power to move forward in this way is in line with the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant last updated in June 2022 which provides the outline of issues for the Panel to consider including (as Ms Bass had submitted):
• The nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s absence. In this case there seemed no doubt that the Registrant had intentionally decided to forgo the opportunity to attend this hearing, to be heard and to participate effectively.
• The public interest in advancing the case to a conclusion.
5
15. The Panel had in mind the requirements of Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and the general principles of fairness.
16. In accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note, a Panel must first consider whether notice of the proceedings have been served on the Registrant. The Panel must also have consideration of all the circumstances of the case when taking the decision to proceed in absence, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.
17. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was served notice of the hearing by email dated 15 May 2025 and subsequently by post. The notice confirmed the date of the hearing, that the hearing would take place remotely, the purpose of the hearing, (to decide on disputed facts, current impairment and if necessary, impose a proportionate sanction); and invited the Registrant to provide written submissions if the Registrant wished.
18. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the Registrant with notice of this hearing and that he has implied that she does not wish to participate.
19. The Panel was satisfied that no purpose would be served in delaying these proceedings. Further, this case is a very serious one and ought to be considered at the earliest opportunity available to the Panel. It is both in the Registrant's interests and in the public interest for this matter to be considered and resolved as scheduled.
20. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.
Background
21. The Registrant is a Biomedical Scientist registered with the HCPC.
22. At the time of the referral, she was employed as a Specialist Biomedical Scientist at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust (the Trust).
23. On 7 October 2022, the HCPC received an email from the Head of Profession, Pathology, which stated, "I've been made aware this morning that a member of one of my teams has been charged under the terrorism act and will attend court next week. The individual is HCPC registered. I'm about to advise the staff member to notify you of the current situation."
6
24. The HCPC then received a self-referral from the Registrant dated 14 October 2022. She stated that on 7 October 2022, two police officers had gone to her home and had given her a letter requiring her to attend Court on 17 October 2022 to answer criminal charges.
25. On 14 May 2024 the Registrant was found guilty, following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Leeds, in respect of two counts of `Failure to reveal information’.
26. On 15 July 2024 the Registrant was sentenced to a three year custodial sentence, comprising a term of two years imprisonment and a further licence period of one year. The Registrant was additionally made subject to notification requirements, under Part 4 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, for a period of ten years following her release from custody.
27. A copy of the judge's sentencing remarks has been disclosed by the Court to the HCPC, which sets out that a jury unanimously convicted the Registrant in respect of two offences contrary to s.38B Terrorism Act 2000 of failing to disclose information to the police that she knew or believed might be of material assistance
Decision on Facts
28. Ms Bass provided the Panel with a copy of the Registrant’s certificate of conviction, which verified that the Registrant had been convicted as set out above in the background. Ms Bass relied on the certificate as proof of the facts under rule 10(1)(d) which provides :
(d) where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based;
29. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and observed that while facts are proved on the balance of probability, the certificate of conviction is conclusive proof of the matters set out in the certificate. The Registrant’s name and details had been correctly set out and there had been no challenge to the authenticity or veracity of the certificate of conviction.
30. The Panel found the facts at head of allegation 1 proved.
Decision on Grounds
7
31. Ms Bass invited the Panel to find that the statutory ground of impairment under Article 22 of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) had been made out. Article 22(1)(a)(iii) provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of:
“a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence,”.
32. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the Practice Note Conviction and caution cases last updated in September 2024. There was no information before the Panel that would suggest that Article 22 should be disapplied for any reason and the Practice Note was clear in its terms.
33. The Panel found that the grounds of impairment, a conviction in the UK for a criminal offence, was made out.
Decision on Impairment
34. Ms Bass invited the Panel to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired today. She reminded the Panel that this was an exercise that looked forward rather than considered what was the position historically. Ms Bass invited the Panel to have regard to the Practice Note Fitness to Practise Impairment last updated in February 2025 which said the purpose of such a finding was not to punish the Registrant again for her conviction but was solely confined to issues of public protection. Protecting the public engages the critically important public Policy issues of:
a. protecting service users;
b. declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour; and
c. maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned.
Accordingly, Ms Bass said, the Panel must take account of two broad components:
a. the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the Registrant concerned; and
b. the ‘public’ component: the critically important public policy issues.
8
Ms Bass reminded the Panel that both aspects are interrelated and that both are components of the public interest.
[REDACTED]
35. Ms Bass submitted that in all of the circumstances, the Registrant had prioritised her personal feelings and attachments over her duty as a Registrant to protect the public. The Registrant had pleaded not guilty and had shown no measure of insight into the harm that her actions had caused. She had placed innocent members of the public at risk. She had been the cause of an inevitable risk to the trust and confidence that the public held for the profession of Biomedical Scientist.
The Panel’s approach
36. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It had regard to the Practice Note Ms Bass had discussed. The Panel recognised that a decision on impairment is one of judgement and impression which is guided by its evaluation of the evidence but does not require additional evidence. The Panel understood that the focus of its decision was on the Registrant’s fitness to practise as at today’s date.
Personal Component
37. In relation to the personal component, the Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions which led to her conviction put patients at unwarranted risk of harm and whether, looking forward, the Registrant is liable to put patients at unwarranted risk of harm. In reaching its conclusion on these matters, the Panel has considered the available evidence of insight, remorse, reflection, and the likelihood of any repetition of the misconduct involved in this case.
38. In this case, the Panel had received no response from the Registrant to suggest that, were the same situation to arise, she would act differently in future. She had pleaded not guilty and never provided any hint either to the judge, through her legal counsel, or to the HCPC that she had recognised the gravity of her actions, the obligations that she had disregarded and the implications for public safety. The Panel expected that had the Registrant developed the necessary insight, she could have demonstrated it by submitting a sincere and insightful reflection coupled with an appropriate commitment to never repeating any such actions in the future in any context. In this way it might be shown to be unlikely to reoccur. The Panel considered the three questions posed in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin), namely,
9
i. is the conduct easily remediable,
ii. had it in fact been remedied, and
iii. finally is it highly unlikely to be repeated in the future.
39. The Panel noted that the Registrant expressed no remorse. The Registrant did not provide any reflection in which she explained her understanding of the impact that his actions had on patient and public safety, on the risks of diminishment of the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public, nor on the need to declare and uphold proper Standards of conduct for the profession.
40. In all of these circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was a real risk of a repetition by the Registrant of her actions which could, again, lead to a serious criminal offence being committed. Were that to occur, the already serious harm to the safety of colleagues and patients impacted by her silence and concealment of terrorism in planning would reoccur. Therefore there was a risk that the reputation of the profession would be further diminished. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has shown no insight into her misconduct. Neither has she accepted responsibility for her conviction in any meaningful or material way.
41. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.
Public Component
42. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74 of the case, the High Court reiterated what was said by Mrs Justice Cox in the fifth Shipman Report:
In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant Panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional Standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the Particular circumstances.
43. In paragraph 76 of the judgement the court quoted with approval Dame Janet Smith’s formulation of the test for impairment:
10
Do our findings of fact in respect of the [registered person’s] misconduct, … show that her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that she:
a) has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the [relevant] profession into disrepute; and/or
c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the [relevant] profession; and/or
d) …
44. [REDACTED]
45. The Panel is satisfied that, given the Registrant’s complete absence of insight that she is responsible for failing to intervene to prevent what could have been a catastrophically violent event of mass murder. Public confidence in the Biomedical Scientist profession would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel is also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper Standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.
46. The Panel therefore finds, on the public component, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.
47. Accordingly, the Panel finds, on both the personal and public component grounds, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired and that head of allegation 2 is well founded.
Decision on Sanction
48. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case, the Panel took into account the guidance set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel took into account the submissions by Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC.
49. Ms Bass did not ask for a particular sanction to be imposed. However, she invited the Panel to consider the prominence that the Policy gives to criminal convictions as a serious matter.
50. The Panel was aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is to protect
11
the public including colleagues and patients, to maintain confidence in the Biomedical Scientist profession, and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour.
51. The Panel also held in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the misconduct involved. Any sanction must command the respect and confidence of the public in the Panel’s willingness to uphold the statutory objective of the HCPC. Any sanction however must always be the least restrictive but equally effective alternative to fully protect the public.
52. The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors.
53. [REDACTED]
54. The Panel then looked at the mitigating factors under the headings of:
• Insight
• Remorse
• Apology, and
• Remediation.
55. The Panel considered that the Registrant had shown no insight at all. She did not, as might have been expected of a Biomedical Scientist, show any degree of insight into the appalling and deplorable violence that might have resulted had the conspiracy been put into effect, uninterrupted by her concealment of the plot.
56. In these circumstances, the Panel was unable to find even very limited insight and apology. There was no material before the Panel that could be described as remorse, apology or any remediation by the Registrant.
57. The Panel recognised that the Registrant had been sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment, which would not end until 14 July 2027 at the earliest. In accordance with the principles in the case of Fleishmann v GDC [2005] EWHC 87
‘… as a general principle, where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. Only circumstances which plainly justify a different course should permit otherwise.’
12
58. Ms Bass had pointed out that a three year sentence of imprisonment would extend beyond the maximum period available for a Conditions of Practice Order. This served to emphasise, the Panel considered, the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending.
59. The Panel then looked at the aggravating factors under the headings:
• Lack of insight, remorse, or apology
• Lack of remediation
• Service user harm/potential service user harm
60. The Panel considered the potential harm to patients and to the wider public to be a seriously aggravating factor in this case.
Sanctions
61. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It decided that to take no action or to impose a caution order, in this case, would not be appropriate or proportionate given the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction. Although this was the first departure from good standing by the Registrant, in no way could it be described as relatively minor in nature. The opposite is true.
62. The Panel has been unable to find that there is no risk of repetition. This is not because it considers the Registrant to be incapable of remediation. Rather it is because of the troubling absence of remediation shown by the Registrant. There was no recognition by her of the degree of harm that could have been caused by her concealment.
63. The Panel considered but rejected as not being appropriate, the possibility of a conditions of practice being imposed. These were matters of attitude and disposition, not clinical failures where conditions of practice are more meaningful. In any event, the Registrant had not demonstrated any willingness to cooperate with conditions of practice once released from prison. The Panel took into account that the Policy provides that a conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
(a) the Registrant has insight;
(b) the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
(c) there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the Registrant from remediating;
13
(d)appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions can beformulated;
(e)the Panel is confident the Registrant will comply with the conditions;
(f)a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether or not thoseconditions have or are being met;
(g)the Registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restrictedpractice.
64.For the reasons set out above, the Panel did not consider that a conditionsof practice Order was appropriate in this case, and that it would not protectthe public or satisfy the overarching objective.
65.The Panel then considered whether a suspension order was appropriateand proportionate. The Panel recognised that a suspension order is likelyto be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot bereasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do notrequire the Registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of caseswill typically exhibit the following factors:
•the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards ofconduct, performance and ethics;
•the Registrant has insight;
•the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
•there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able toresolve or remedy their failings.
66.The Panel concluded there is no information before it that would satisfyany of the conditions that would permit a suspension order to be ameaningful and purposeful sanction in this case. In particular, withoutevidence of insight, the Panel could not be satisfied that the actionsleading to the Registrant’s conviction were unlikely to be repeated.
67.The Panel then considered the sanction of last resort, a striking off order.A striking off order would remove the Registrant’s name from the Registerand prohibit her from practising her profession. Striking off is a long-termsanction as illustrated by the effects of Article 33(2) of the Health and CareProfessions Order which provides that, unless new evidence comes tolight, a person may not apply for restoration to the Register within five
14
years of the date of a striking off order being made, and panels do not have the power to vary that restriction.
68. The Policy observes at paragraph 131 that:
A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the Registrant:
• lacks insight;
• is unwilling to resolve matters.
69. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 93 of the Policy which provides:
Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession.
70. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that a striking off order was appropriate because the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction and her underlying concealment of a plan to perpetrate serious violence on innocent members of the public are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public. This includes the interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.
71. The Panel understood that a striking off order has the potential to have a significant impact on a Registrant. The decision was not arrived at lightly. However, for the reasons expanded on above. The Panel considered that it would be failing in its duty not to impose a striking off order in the whole circumstances of this case.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Ms Nabeela Anjum from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order
Application
72.Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to impose an interimOrder of suspension in this case. She submitted that in circumstanceswhere a striking
73.She submitted that any other course would contradict the Panel’sdecision-making in the substantive order.
74.Ms Bass invited the Panel to impose an interim suspension order for 18months to allow for any appeal to be concluded.
75.The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and recognised that itmust act fairly and proportionately.
76.The Panel concluded that it was necessary to impose an interim order toprovide for the possibility of an appeal being made, which would have theeffect of interrupting the substantive order coming into effect.
77.The Panel decided that in all of the circumstances and for the reasons setout in the substantive determination, only an interim order of suspensionwould sufficiently protect the public pending the resolution of any appeal.In the event that no appeal is made, the interim order will cease to haveeffect after 28 days and the substantive order will come into effect.

Decision
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Nabeela Anjum