Miss Zarah Iqbal

Profession: Operating department practitioner

Registration Number: ODP38370

Interim Order: Imposed on 18 Jun 2019

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 05/06/2020 End: 17:00 05/06/2020

Location: hearing taking place virtually rather than HCPTS

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



While registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as an Operating Department Practitioner:

1. On 5 March 2019 at Bradford Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of Fraud by abuse of Position.

2. By reason of your conviction, your fitness to practise is impaired.



Preliminary Matters
Application to proceed in Private
1. The Registrant applied for those parts of the hearing where matters relating to her health might be mentioned to be heard in private. Mr Millin on behalf of the HCPC did not oppose this application. The Panel decided that in order to protect the Registrant’s private interest, those parts of the hearing should be held in private.
2. Zarah Iqbal (‘the Registrant’) is registered with the Council as an Operating Department Practitioner.
3. On 28 March 2019, the Registrant advised the Council that she had, on her own admission, been convicted of fraud by abuse of position. She was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months, to perform 240 hours of unpaid work and 25 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days.
4. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant informed the Panel that she admitted the conviction.
Decision on Facts
5. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered all the evidence before it, which amounted to the memorandum of conviction, together with the Registrant’s admission.
6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
7. The Panel was satisfied that this was a true memorandum and it therefore found the conviction proved.
Decision on Grounds
8. The Panel decided that the Memorandum of Conviction established the ground of conviction.
Decision on Impairment
9. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered all the information before it including the evidence of the Registrant, her submissions and those by Mr Millin. It had regard to the HCPC’s Practice Notes on ‘Conviction and Impairment’. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
10. The Panel had in mind that the Registrant made immediate admissions when interviewed by the police; that she had pleaded guilty at the outset; also, that she self-referred to the HCPC.
11. In her evidence, the Registrant described, as she did at the Crown Court, that she felt under pressure from others and that this resulted in her committing her fraudulent acts. The Registrant referred to her reflective statement and **** she had undergone. She said that she found these sessions to be helpful in assisting her to address how she would approach matters in future, were a similar situation to occur. She said that she had learnt a lesson and that such dishonest actions would not occur again. In this context, the Crown Court judge in his sentencing remarks commented that “there was no risk of recurrence”.
12. The Registrant has provided a number of references, referring to her character, albeit many of these are undated and unsigned and do not state whether the writer was aware of her conviction.
13. This was an extremely serious offence involving dishonesty over a lengthy period and a substantial amount of money. It was a sophisticated fraud in circumstances where the Registrant was able to abuse her employer’s financial systems. As a result of her criminal behaviour, the Registrant was in breach of Standard 9 of the HCPC’s ‘Standard of Performance and Ethics’ which states
“you must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.
14. In her evidence, the Registrant agreed that her actions would reflect poorly on the reputation of the profession. However, the Panel has found that although she has displayed some degree of insight into her criminal acts and its resultant effects, this is as yet not fully developed.
15. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired in relation to the personal component.
16. In regard to the public element, the Panel concluded that right thinking members of the public would be concerned if a finding of impairment were not made where a Registrant has been convicted of fraudulent conduct on this scale, particularly where this was committed in the course of her employment over a lengthy period, and where a term of imprisonment, albeit suspended, has been imposed.
17. The Panel has therefore determined that a finding of impairment is in the public interest in order to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and to maintain confidence in the profession and regulatory process. 

Decision on Sanction
18. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered all the evidence and information before it. This included information and submissions from the Registrant at the adjourned hearing of 10 January 2020 and also the additional information and submissions made by her at the resumed hearing. The Panel also considered submissions from Mr Millin at the adjourned hearing on 10 January 2020 and those from Ms Sheridan at the resumed hearing.  It had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy.   It had exercised the principle of proportionality at all times.   It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.  
19. Mr Millin made no submissions in regard to particular sanctions. He referred to the Policy and emphasised that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish a Registrant, but rather to protect the Public and to address public interest concerns.  Ms Sheridan made no further submissions to those made by Mr Millin. She commented that the additional material from the Registrant did not significantly alter the situation as at 10 January 2020.
20. It appeared to the Panel that, as at the hearing of 10 January 2020, the Registrant again did not adequately address the serious criminality of her actions which brought her before the Court and her Regulator. The Registrant’s submissions to the Panel concentrated only on clinical matters and her academic and career intentions.
21. The Panel found these to be aggravating features:
• The serious nature of the criminal conviction as marked by the lengthy prison sentence imposed, albeit suspended.
• The substantial amount of money involved, some £38,000.
• The Breach of Trust – the Registrant was in a position of responsibility employed as a Customer Service Adviser at Argos where she had knowledge of her employer’s financial procedures which she abused.
• The fraud was pre-planned and relatively sophisticated in the misuse of electronic gift cards intended for customers, her own bank cards and those of family members to obtain refunds where there had been no previous sale transactions.
• The serious and persistent acts of dishonesty occurred on some 43 occasions over a lengthy period – December 2016 – March 2018.
• The Registrant’s actions could have implicated other persons, including her family and friends, unwittingly in her dishonesty.
• At the time of the fraudulent acts the Registrant demonstrated a total lack of insight into the effect upon her employer and those who might without their knowledge be implicated.
22. The Panel found these to be mitigating features:
• There have been no previous findings against the Registrant either before her Regulator, the HCPTS or the Criminal Courts.
• The Registrant’s early admissions to her Employer, to the Police, and to the HCPC, to whom she self-referred, albeit only after her fraudulent transactions had been discovered.
• The Registrant’s guilty plea at her trial.
• The Registrant was described by the Judge in his sentencing remarks as immature at the time of the fraud and having acted under pressure from another. Further, that the money was not obtained for the Registrant’s own benefit, and was subsequently repaid by her in full, albeit only following her interview by Police.
• The Registrant’s expression of remorse and her apology to her Employer.
• The Registrant has displayed some degree of insight into the serious nature and possible implications of her fraudulent conduct.
• The risk of repetition, as described by the judge, is low.
23. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. However, this was a serious offence of dishonesty and the period for which the sentence of imprisonment was suspended does not expire until 27th March 2021. It would be inappropriate to allow the Registrant to practise unrestricted until the suspension period is at an end.  Furthermore, although the Registrant does not pose a threat to Public safety, the public interest concerns arising from the serious nature of the offence demand a sanction.
24. The Panel then considered a Caution Order.  However, the serious nature of the offence is such that this would be inappropriate and insufficient to address Public Interest concerns.
25. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order, but in the light of the serious nature of the offence, there are no conditions which would be appropriate or sufficient to address Public Interest concerns.
26. The Panel then considered a Suspension Order, but again it concluded that such an order would be insufficient to address the serious nature of the offence.
27. The Panel therefore considered a Striking Off Order.   It is aware that this is a sanction of last resort, for serious acts, including those of Breach of Trust and Criminal convictions for dishonesty.
28. The Panel referred to the Policy which states that a Striking Off Order should be used where the nature of the offence is such that any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect or would undermine confidence in the profession or in the Regulatory process.
29. The Panel had in mind the aggravating features referred to above, but despite the mitigating features, it determined that the only sufficient, appropriate and proportionate sanction is that of a Striking Off Order.


Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Miss Zarah Iqbal from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.


Application for Interim Order

1. Miss Sheridan applied for an Interim Order of Suspension on the grounds of the Public Interest and for the protection of the public for the maximum period of 18 months, to cover the 28-day appeal period and the time that might be required to conclude any appeal.


2. In reaching its decision the Panel considered all the information before it together with its findings on impairment and the submissions by Miss Sheridan.   It considered also the submissions made by the Registrant.   It had regard to the HCPTS Practise Note ‘Interim Orders’ and the relevant paragraphs of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy.  It accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

3. It was satisfied that as it has found the Registrant’s Fitness to Practise is impaired, an Interim Order is necessary for the protection of the public.  Furthermore, an Order is in the Public Interest as right thinking members of the public would be concerned if the Registrant were allowed to practise unrestricted until the Substantive Order comes into effect.  It therefore determined that an Interim Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

4. The Panel was satisfied that during the appeal period there were no workable or appropriate conditions which would be sufficient to protect the Public. It therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary to protect the public.  Such an Order is also in the public interest to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. Although the Registrant will be unable to practise during the currency of this Interim Order, her interests are outweighed by those of the public. The Interim Suspension Order will be for a period of 18 months to cover any appeal period.

Interim Order

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31 (2) of the Health and Professions Order 2001, this being for the protection 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 an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Miss Zarah Iqbal

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
05/06/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off
10/01/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Adjourned part heard