Abdul Hakim Mohammed

Preliminary Matters

Application to hear part of the hearing in private

1. The Panel heard that matters relating to the Registrant’s health may be referred to during the course of the hearing. Mr Slack submitted that it was appropriate that those parts of the hearing be held in private. The Registrant supported the application.

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, and it noted Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules whereby matters relating to the private life of the Registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client should be heard in private. The Panel therefore agreed that those parts of the hearing where reference was to be made to the Registrant’s health or private life should be heard in private.

Application for special measures

3. Mr Slack made an application for special measures in relation to the evidence of Colleague A. The request was for the Registrant’s camera to be switched off during her evidence so that he could not be seen by Colleague A.

4. The Registrant did not object to the application.

5. The panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to Rule 10A of the Rules which states:

10A.— (1) In proceedings before the Committee, the following may, if the quality of their evidence is likely to be adversely affected as a result, be treated as a vulnerable witness—
…
(e) any witness, where the allegation against the practitioner is of a sexual nature and the witness was the alleged victim;
…
(3)(d) use of screens or such other measures as the Committee consider necessary in the circumstances.

6. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that Colleague A was a vulnerable witness to whom Rule 10A applied. It further determined that the special measure sought was appropriate in the circumstances, it therefore granted the HCPC’s application.

Background

7. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic (PA056369) and was employed by the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the Trust”) from 1 October 2019 until 16 May 2023. The Registrant began working in his Newly Qualified Paramedic role with the Trust on 14 November 2022.

8. On 13 March 2023, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant in relation to an ongoing disciplinary investigation by the Trust. The concerns being investigated by the Trust related to allegations of sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact towards a female colleague, Colleague A. The Trust provided a separate referral to the HCPC in respect of the same concerns on 25 May 2023.

Decision on Facts

Live evidence heard

9. The Panel heard live evidence from three witnesses, who all gave evidence by video link:

• Colleague A;
• Sarah Galka, Clinical Team Manager for Operations at Hillingdon Ambulance Station; and
• Tamsin Abbott, Paramedic.

10. The Panel has also had sight of a number of documentary exhibits which included, but was not limited to:

• Witness statements of Colleague A dated 22 August 2023 and 23 May 2024 together with its exhibits;
• Witness statement Ms Galka dated 11 February 2024 together with its exhibits;
• Statement of Ms Abbott together with its exhibits; and
• Screenshots of text messages.

11. The Panel also heard oral evidence from the Registrant. It also considered the documentation provided by the Registrant which included:

• A reflective statement, undated;
• A statement of written submissions;
• His ‘case summary’ document;
• The Registrant’s feedback forms.

Panel’s Approach

12. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything, and the individual Particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied that the case was proved on the balance of probabilities.

13. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the oral evidence received, together with all the documentary evidence as well as the oral submissions made by Mr Slack and the Registrant. The Panel also accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which is a matter of record.

14. The Panel in its deliberations, has also taken account of its obligation, so far as it may be relevant to the facts of this case, to consider the applicability of Section 15 Equality Act 2010.

Particulars 1a and 1b

15. The Panel found the facts of Particular 1 proved for the following reasons.

16. Colleague A said that the Registrant had the same role as her at the time of the incidents in question and was also an NQP. She said that they first met during the induction and became work colleagues. They were part of a group of about 20 NQPs who were all completing the induction course together. The Registrant and her were work colleagues and, as such, had a professional working relationship.

17. Colleague A stated that on 18 November 2022, at the end of the first week of the induction course, the induction course group went out for dinner. She said that she sat at the end of the table. The Registrant arrived at the restaurant after everyone else had ordered their dinner and drinks. She stated that she felt that he made a beeline towards her. She stated that the Registrant pulled up a chair so that he could sit next to her despite the fact that there were seats available at the other end of the table.

18. Colleague A stated that she had only spoken to the Registrant three times before this during the induction course, and each time had been about the topics they were learning in the classroom. On this occasion, the Registrant began talking to her and, within three sentences, asked her how many people she had slept with. She said she did not answer this question. The Registrant then asked her if she wanted to sleep with him that evening or the next evening. She responded with “our course tutor…said in class today make sure you don’t get too close with each other.” The Registrant then continued the conversation by talking about how many people he had slept with. No one else was taking part in the conversation.

19. Colleague A said that this made her feel very uncomfortable and when a friend of hers went up to the bar, she got up to join him as an excuse to leave. She explained to him what the Registrant had said to her, and he agreed to swap seats with her so that she would not have to sit next to the Registrant for the rest of the meal. She did not speak to the Registrant again that night.

20. The Panel considered that Colleague A’s evidence was consistent and reliable. Her live evidence was consistent with both her written statements and with the statement she gave to Ms Galka on 9 March 2023.

21. In addition, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence before it to suggest a sinister motive for Colleague A fabricating her complaint about the Registrant, or for embellishing a false allegation

22. The Registrant denied the allegation. He stated that during the conversation in the pub, he hadn’t invited the initial disclosures about her private life. He said that he felt that he was sharing quite personal information after Colleague A initiated equally personal discussions about an affair she had had in Oxford. He queried why, if this was truly distressing, did she wait two months to report it. He stated that Colleague A continued texting him socially, even asking him if he was going out.

23. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s denial was inconsistent with what he had said during the course of a resolution framework interview held on 24 February 2023. In that meeting, the Registrant said that: “I was the person who spoke about relationship. I asked what was her body count”. When asked what he meant by that, he said: “How many guys have you slept with…I was the person who initiated the conversation. It escalated. I asked how many partners she had and asked what were the chances of something happening between us”.

24. The Panel rejected the Registrant’s assertion that Colleague A’s evidence was unreliable, commenting on the lateness of her complaint. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel drew no adverse inference from Colleague A’s short delay in reporting the incident, taking care to avoid any stereotypical view as to how and when a complaint should be made. The Panel concluded that, such delay as there was, did not undermine the veracity of Colleague A’s evidence, particularly when taking into consideration, the inconsistency in the Registrant’s account of events.

25. The Panel therefore finds the facts of Particular 1 proved.

Particular 2

26. The Panel found the facts of Particular 2 proved for the following reasons.

27. Colleague A stated that whilst she and the Registrant were on their first shift together, he asked her if she was in a relationship or if she was registered for online dating. She responded with “No I’m not seeing anyone and I’m not online dating. The Registrant then said that, as they had the same shift rota, they could spend time together on their days off. She said that she felt that the way the Registrant asked her to spend time with him immediately after asking her if she was in a relationship was his way of propositioning her. She said the Registrant also said something about wanting to come over to her house, but she said that he could not and made it clear that he was not welcome.

28. Colleague A stated that the Registrant asked to visit her house. She said that the Registrant sent her messages on 14 December 2022, copies of which were produced to the Panel, where he mentioned that he was “waiting for my invite soon” to which Colleague A responded: “….hahahahha must have gotten lost in the mail”.

29. Colleague A also stated that, on a date that she could not now recall, during a general group discussion in the classroom, she was explaining how she had a time limit to move into her new house. She said the Registrant addressed her directly and offered to help her move into the new house. She said the Registrant told her that he lived in the same area as her new house and that he had a car she could use to help move things to the new place. He also said that once she had moved in, he would love to see the new house. Colleague A said that she declined this offer and explained that she had already had friends helping her. This was a one off comment and the group conversation then moved on to a different topic.

30. Colleague A also stated that, on 18 January 2023 the Registrant said something about wanting to come over to her house. After he had asked her to hang out with him outside of work. He said, “I still need to see your place”. She said that she told the Registrant that she was really busy and so could not see him outside work, and that her housemates and she were not having people over to their new place so he would not be invited.

31. The Panel found Colleague A’s evidence to be credible and reliable. Her live evidence was consistent with her written statements, with the statement she gave to Ms Galka and with the text messages sent to her by the Registrant.

32. Whilst the Registrant denied the allegation, it was not disputed that he offered Colleague A a lift home and also to help her move house. He conceded this in his live evidence and in his interview with Ms Galka on 24 February 2023.

33. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant asked to attend Colleague A’s home between the dates alleged. The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 2 proved.

Particular 3

34. As set out at paragraph 18 above, the Panel accepted Colleague A’s evidence that the Registrant told her how many people he had slept with. Colleague A also stated that she had had a conversation with the Registrant about the gym and workout routines in which, she stated, the Registrant said that “I haven’t slept with anyone in a year and a half”.

35. Again, the Panel concluded that Colleague A’s evidence was both credible and reliable and had remained consistent throughout.

36. This was inconsistent with the contents of the Registrant’s reflective statement in which he stated: “I am, and have always been, a devout Muslim and regard all forms of sexual contact with women as forbidden to me until after marriage. Therefore, I have never dated or behaved flirtatiously with any woman, although I am embarrassed to acknowledge this outside my small circle of Muslim male friends.”

37. The Panel also had regard to the contents of the Registrant’s interview with Ms Galka dated 24 February 2023 in which it was put to him that he had said to Colleague A that he said: “I haven’t slept with anyone in a year and a half”. The Panel noted that, rather than deny he said that, the Registrant stated: “Yes I’m a good boy. I hadn’t had any physical contact”.

38. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant told Colleague A about his sexual partners between the dates alleged. The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 3 proved.

Particular 4 and Particular 4a

39. Colleague A stated that on 18 January 2023, while in the back of the ambulance during a conversation where he had been talking about how he went to the gym a lot, the Registrant said: “Can you believe it, I haven’t slept with anyone in a year and a half”. She said that she ignored this comment about the Registrant’s sex life and just continued talking about the gym.

40. For the reasons set out above, the Panel has found that the Registrant told Colleague A about his sexual partners and that in doing so, had said the words alleged.

41. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particular 4a proved.

Particular 4b

42. Colleague A stated that on or about 18 January 2023, whilst walking in Chinatown, the Registrant kept bumping into her in a way that she felt was deliberate. She said that the street was not busy but that she had to keep moving away from the Registrant to keep her personal space. However, even though she kept moving away from him, he continued to bump into her from the side. She said that there was plenty of room for both of them to walk without bumping into each other.

43. Her evidence was consistent with her written statement and with the statement she gave to Ms Galka in which she confirmed that she considered the Registrant’s contact to be unnecessary and that there was sufficient room that he did not need to keep doing it.

44. The Registrant conceded that he may have bumped into the Registrant but if he had, it was unintentional and would only have happened because of the lack of space because there were so many people in Chinatown.

45. However, the Panel rejected the Registrant’s version of events. it has found Colleague A’s evidence to be credible and reliable. Furthermore, seen in context, and given that the Panel has already found in Particular 1a that he wanted a sexual relationship with Colleague A, it concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant deliberately sought some physical contact with Colleague A, albeit through what might otherwise be perceived as ‘casual’ bumping into her.

46. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particular 4b proved.

Particular 4c

47. Colleague A stated that the Registrant asked if she wanted a massage, but she refused it. The Panel noted that her evidence was again consistent with her written statement and her interview with Ms Galka. The allegation was denied by the Registrant.

48. The Panel was mindful that in relation to this Particular, there were no independent witnesses, and that the Panel’s determination has to be based on an assessment of the conflicting versions of events in the absence of corroborating evidence.

49. The Panel has identified that it has found the evidence of Colleague A to be credible, consistent and reliable. Furthermore, it has considered the evidence in the context of a Registrant, who the Panel has found, has displayed sexualised behaviour towards Colleague A, most notably, having directly asked her if she would sleep with him.

50. The Panel concluded that, seen within that context, it was more likely than not that the Registrant did ask Colleague A if she wanted a massage.

51. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particular 4c proved.

Particular 4d

52. On 18 January 2023, at the end of her shift, Colleague A said that the Registrant had sent me a text asking if I had left the station yet. She said that she had previously received two calls from the Registrant which she did not answer. She stated that she replied with “leaving now, see you tomorrow”. She said that he sent a second text asking if she would like a lift to the station. She declined the Registrant’s offer by replying “That’s okay thanks, see you tomorrow”. A copy of the messages was produced to the Panel.

53. She then stated that, as she was leaving the station, she saw that the Registrant was in his car which was parked on the road. The Registrant wound down his window and told her that he would give her a lift. She replied “No, I’m alright thanks”. She said that she continued to walk down the road, but the Registrant drove alongside her and kept asking her to get into his car to which she continued to reply, “No thanks”.

54. Colleague A said that she finally told the Registrant “I don’t want a lift, I really like to walk, see you tomorrow.” She said the Registrant’s insistence was making her uncomfortable. She said that the Registrant continued to follow her down the road and that she was very aware that he was driving behind her. Eventually, the Registrant then drove off down the road. Colleague A said that she remembered that she knew that she did not want to be in a car with the Registrant by herself.

55. The Panel has also noted the evidence of Ms Abbott. She stated, and the Panel accepted, that the Registrant had previously asked her how Colleague A would get home. Ms Abbott stated that Colleague A normally walked to the Overground Station or took the bus from just outside the station.

56. The Registrant did not dispute that he offered Colleague A a lift but denied that he followed Colleague A down the road.

57. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conversation with Ms Abbott was demonstrative of a settled intention to give Colleague A a lift home. The Panel concluded that it was a proper inference to draw that, having made that enquiry, and given the context of his intended relationship with Colleague A as set out earlier in this determination, that the Registrant was persistent in giving Colleague A a lift home.

58. In the circumstances therefore, notwithstanding the Registrant’s denial, the Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant followed Colleague A in his car after she refused an offer of a lift.

59. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particular 4d proved.

Particulars 5a and 5b

60. Colleague A stated that on 19 January 2023, at the start of her second shift, the Registrant walked into the break room with his arms open wide as if to offer her a hug. She said that she told him that she would not get up to give him a hug, meaning that she would not give him a hug at all. The Registrant then lay down on top of her so that his full body weight was on her, she said that the Registrant’s arms were not wrapped around her because she was sitting upright on the couch, so they were just out to the sides. She stated that she remembered thinking that he was so heavy that she was not sure if she could push him off. She said that, as the Registrant had leant down, she had brought her iPad up to her chest and so her arms were in the correct position to be able to push him off her which was what she did. She gave a visual demonstration to the Panel as to how she did that.

61. The Registrant did not deny that he approached Colleague A for a hug but denied that he laid on top of her. Given that admission, the Panel found the facts of Particular 5a proved.

62. So far as Particular 5b was concerned, the Panel noted that Colleague A’s recollection of events was consistent with her statement and the account given to Ms Galka.

63. The Registrant denied that he laid on top of Colleague A. In support of his position, he raised a potential inconsistency in Colleague A’s account in as to whether the incident took place before or after an assessment meeting.

64. The Panel noted that in any event, Colleague A clarified that the incident occurred before the meeting. The Panel concluded that even if such an inconsistency existed, it should have regard to the principle derived from the case of Pandlan v GMC [2024] EWHC 629 (Admin) in that the fact that a witness's evidence is inconsistent on a minor or more tangential matter does not mean that it cannot accept the evidence as being reliable.

65. Again, in considering whether the HCPC had discharged its burden of proof, the Panel has considered the evidence in the context of a Registrant seeking a sexual relationship with Colleague A. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that he acted as alleged.

66. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particular 5b proved.

Particulars 5c, 5d and 5e

67. Colleague A stated that, later that day on 19 January 2023, at the end of the same shift, she was in an ambulance outside a hospital with the Registrant and Ms Abbott. They had finished their last job and were about to have a debrief with Ms Abbott. In order to have a debrief, they needed to press a button on the dashboard of the ambulance so that the ambulance shows as unavailable. Ms Abbott was seated at the back of the ambulance and the Registrant was at the front. She stated that Ms Abbott asked the Registrant to radio the control room to say they were going offline and to press the button.

68. She stated that the Registrant had forgotten he had to be in the front of the vehicle to press the button, so she said that she would quickly reach through and do this as it had to be done quickly. There was a gap between the front seats of the ambulance so that she could reach the front section of the ambulance from the back. She said that even though it was a small gap, she had leant through to push the dashboard many times before. The Registrant was sitting next to this gap.

69. She said that as she pushed herself back, the Registrant who was sitting directly to the right of her in the back of the ambulance on the airway seat next to the gap, put both of his hands on her waist. She said that she was not off balance or unstable and did not need any stabilisation. The Registrant then moved his right hand down to her right buttock and he squeezed it.

70. Colleague A did not say anything at the time. She thought Ms Abbott had seen what had happened and she thought Ms Abbott was laughing off what the Registrant had just done. She said she was in shock about what had just happened, so she quietly sat down in her seat. She said that she did not mention the incident to either the Registrant or Ms Abbott for the rest of the shift.

71. The evidence of Colleague A was supported by Ms Abbott. She said that while Colleague A was leaning over, the Registrant put both his hands on her hips which she thought was strange as Colleague A did not need to be stabilised as she was not falling. She said that she saw the Registrant holding Colleague A’s right hip with his right hand, with his left hand on her left hip. She said that she could not see the Registrant’s right hand as it was covered by his left arm.

72. The Registrant denied the allegation. He said that he did nothing more than support Colleague A to prevent her falling. He denied that he touched or squeezed her bottom.

73. The Panel concluded that it preferred Colleague A’s version of events. Not only had she been consistent in her accounts, but her evidence was corroborated by Ms Abbott. Furthermore, it concluded that the Registrant’s version of events was less credible. Whilst in evidence, he stated that he held Colleague A to stop her falling, in his Resolution Framework Interview with Ms Galka on 24 February 2023, he gave a wholly inconsistent account stating that there was: “no physical contact” and that Colleague A did not lose her balance. His assertion in that interview that “I was doing my paperwork. I wasn’t paying attention. I think I was standing at the back or maybe outside talking to someone” was wholly at odds with his live evidence.

74. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s live evidence was inconsistent with his written closing submissions. In that document, he stated that, with reference to Colleague A: “She admits she’s pressed that button before. Why would she need “stabilization” this time?”.

75. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s evidence in relation to these Particulars was improbable and not reliable, and that it was more likely than not that the incidents occurred as alleged.

76. In the circumstances, the Panel found the facts of Particulars 5c, 5d and 5e proved.
Particular 6
77. Having found the facts of allegations 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e proved, the Panel has gone on to consider whether the Registrant’s actions were sexually motivated.

78. The Panel has borne in mind the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), in which the High Court defined acting with sexual motivation as conduct done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

79. It is mindful that sexual motivation requires a specific intent on the part of a Registrant. It is not the same as carelessness, recklessness, or negligence and that it is important not to equate inappropriate conduct with sexually motivated conduct. It has asked itself whether there could be any other explanation for the alleged conduct in accordance with the principle derived from the case of Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 873 (Admin). It has had regard to the Registrant’s state of mind noting that it is not something that can be proved by direct observation. It can be proved only by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence.

80. The Panel has also borne in mind the case of Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763; General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin). This case stated that when considering sexual motivation, a Panel should make a deduction from all the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the material in the round. However, the best evidence of a sexual motivation could be the behaviour itself. If there is no plausible, alternative explanation as to why the Registrant engaged in conduct or actions of an overtly sexual nature, then it is entitled to conclude that the motivation was sexual. It was said in that case that such a motivation could be inferred from:

a. The fact that the touching was of the sexual organs
b. The absence of a clinical justification
c. The absence of any other plausible reason for the touching.

81. It is also mindful that the test for sexual motivation inferred from the acts of an individual towards colleagues, may, but does not necessarily have to include physical touching.

82. The Registrant stated that his conduct was not sexually motivated, and that his contact with Colleague A was platonic. In his reflective statement, the Registrant stated that he deeply regretted and was sorry for any distress Colleague A experienced due to her interaction with him. He stated that he was unaware he was causing her upset and that it was completely unintentional on his behalf. He stated that he completely misinterpreted his interactions with her and that he thought he was developing a good and mutually supportive but entirely non-sexual friendship.

83. He stated that he now understood that he was naive about the social rules of his engagement with Colleague A. He said he felt he was developing a completely non-sexual friendship with her, while she saw his behaviour as being pushy and ultimately harassing.

84. He stated that he had a limited understanding of social rules as a result of his experience of being a refugee which has impacted his social life in the UK. The lack of understanding of the social rules has governed the way he perceived how young men and women relate to each other informally.

85. The Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ with particular reference to paragraphs 8-14 in relation to sexual motivation. The Practice Note states:

‘Panels should make findings about what happened before determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of the behaviour in question. The findings about what happened will form an important part of the evidence to be examined when determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation.’

86. The Panel has considered the applicability of the Equality Act 2010 but has rejected the Registrant’s explanation for the following reasons:

• The Registrant had seen the NHS Sexual Safety Charter which sets out the expectations of staff and had had online training, including an assessment, about sexual harassment at work;
• The Panel did not consider it credible that, despite his ethnic background and personal circumstances, the Registrant would not have understood that the conduct alleged was unacceptable given that he had worked for the LAS for four years; and
• The Registrant has not provided supporting evidence to indicate that the conduct alleged would have been acceptable behaviour given his ethnic background. Additionally, the Registrant has not adduced any evidence that any health condition from which he may have suffered impacted on his conduct.

87. So far as Particulars 1a and 1b are concerned, the first in time of the allegations, the Panel has found that the Registrant explicitly asked Colleague A if she wanted to have sex with him. As such, the Panel had no difficulty in concluding that the Registrant was pursuing a future sexual relationship. The Panel concluded that there was no other plausible explanation for the Registrant’s conduct.

88. Given that, and given that it was a proper inference to draw that he was sexually attracted to Colleague A, the Panel found that the Registrant’s subsequent sexualised conversations, touching, attempts to be alone with Colleague A and to go to her home, were part of a course of action designed to enable that sexual relationship to develop and were therefore sexually motivated.

89. The Panel additionally found that in respect of Particulars 4b, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e, which related to touching Colleague A, including her bottom, the Registrant sought a measure of sexual gratification from that touching given his sexual attraction to her.

90. The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 6 proved in relation to Particulars 1-5 in their entirety.

Decision on Grounds

HCPC submissions

91. Mr Slack submitted that the facts found proved amounted to failings that were sufficiently far short of the standard expected, that they amounted to misconduct. He invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant had breached Standard 9.1 of the HCPC “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” (2016) (“the Standards”):

Standard 9: Be honest and trustworthy;
Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession

92. He referred the Panel to the meaning prescribed to misconduct in the case of Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311, in which it was said:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a … practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the misconduct to the profession ... Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious.”

93. He invited the Panel to have regard to the personal and public components of impairment as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment. He submitted that the Registrant’s sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague, combined with a lack of insight and lack of evidence of remediation, was such that the Panel should find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components of impairment.

94. Mr Slack further submitted that sexual misconduct was hard to remediate and that the requirement to adhere to professional boundaries was central to a healthcare professional’s responsibilities.

Registrant’s submissions

95. The Registrant referred the Panel to his written reflective statement. He stated that these proceedings have made it difficult for him to return to work.

96. He stated that he has continued to undertake further continuing professional development, but he did not produce CPD certificates for any completed courses.

97. He also reminded the Panel that he had been working for the LAS for four years without there being any previous complaint and that he remained committed to upholding HCPC standards.

Decision on misconduct

98. On the basis of the facts found proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct. It took into account all the evidence received together with the submissions made by Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC and those made by the Registrant in his written and oral representations.

99. In considering this matter, the Panel exercised its own judgement. The Panel also took into account the public interest, which includes protection of the public, maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

100. When considering whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct, the Panel noted that not all breaches of the HCPC’s “Standards of performance, conduct and ethics” need amount to a finding of misconduct.

101. In Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) the Court referred to Roylance where the Court described misconduct as “a falling short by omission or commission of the standards of conduct expected among medical practitioners, and such falling short must be serious” such that it would be “regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

102. The Panel adopted a two-step process in its consideration. Firstly, the Panel considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. Secondly, and only if the facts proved were found to amount to misconduct, the Panel would go on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a result of that misconduct.

103. Given the Panel’s findings in relation to the facts found proved, it concluded that the Registrant breached standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”. The public should quite rightly be entitled to expect that colleagues, patients or any individual, should not be subject to unwanted, persistent sexually motivated conduct. To have behaved in such a way was demonstrative of conduct that fundamentally undermines the public’s trust in both the Registrant and in the profession generally.

104. However, the Panel was mindful that a finding of misconduct did not necessarily follow as a result.

105. The Panel carefully considered the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings. In doing so, it identified that the Registrant engaged in a persistent course of unwanted sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague over a two month period.

106. The Panel heard and accepted the advice received from the Legal Assessor. Having done so and for the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s breach of the Standards were, both individually and collectively, sufficiently serious departures from those expected of a Paramedic as to amount to misconduct.

107. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s conduct as found proved amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

108. The Panel went on to decide whether, as a result of his misconduct, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

109. The Panel had regard to all of the evidence presented in this case, including the submissions of Mr Slack and those of the Registrant. The Panel also heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise ‘Impairment’”.

110. The Panel has had particular regard to the concept of ‘public interest’ as referred to in the case of Alberts v GDC [2022] EWHC 2192 (Admin) where it was said:

“Public safety includes patients, colleagues and visitors in the context of dental practice. As was said by the Respondent, if it was Parliament’s intention that the GDC existed solely to protect patient safety, then the overarching objective might have been stated in those terms, but Parliament mandated the Council to protect the public. That is a broad interpretation and it is a broad interpretation that has been given by the underlying materials promulgated by the GDC which I have set out above. Plainly the interests of fellow professionals and staff is comprehended in the public interest.

…The case of Arunachalam…quite clearly reflects the importance of protection of work colleagues and the duties owed: the duties are in this context like duties, in my judgement, as those imposed in respect of patients, albeit the relationship may not necessarily be the same.

…I am clear,…that a woman is entitled to be protected from sexually-motivated commentary and personalised conversational approaches, particularly in her professional environment. The days have gone by when right-thinking people believed such behaviour was tolerable or, indeed, “just a joke”. In my judgment, such behaviour carries with it the notion of harm, absent clear evidence to the contrary.”

111. Paramedics are expected at all times to act in a professional manner. They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both service users’ and the public’s trust in the profession. In this regard, the Panel considered the judgement of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said:

112. “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.”

113. Mrs Justice Cox went on to say in Paragraph 76:

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor’s misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he:

a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical 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 medical profession; and/or

d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future”.

114. Given its findings regarding ‘seriousness’, the Panel considered that limb a, but principally limbs b and c were all engaged by the Registrant’s conduct. The Panel as set out in its finding on misconduct, found that the Registrant’s sexually motivated behaviour brought the profession into disrepute. The Panel also concluded that acting as found proved breached a fundamental tenet of the profession by not acting decently towards a colleague.

115. In relation to the Registrant’s reflections, the Panel noted that the Registrant has stated in his written submissions that:

“I deeply regret and am sorry for any distress [Colleague A] has experienced due to her interaction with me, all of which I was completely unaware of at the time and was completely unintentional on my behalf. I completely misinterpreted my interactions with [Colleague A]. I thought I was developing a good and mutually supportive but entirely non-sexual friendship.
I have come to understand that I misunderstood and was naive about the social rules of my engagement with [Colleague A]. I felt I was developing a completely non-sexual friendship with [Colleague A], while she saw my behaviour as being pushy and ultimately harassing.
I have realised that I have limited understanding of social rules as a result of my experience of being a refugee which has impacted my social life in the UK. The lack of understanding of the social rules has governed the way I perceived how young men and women relate to each other informally.
During the conversation in the pub, I hadn’t invited the first disclosures but felt that I was sharing quite personal information equally after [Colleague A’s] initial disclosure”.

116. However, the Panel had concerns that despite the Registrant’s written comments, which suggested a meaningful insight into his conduct, those written reflections were at odds with his oral evidence and written submissions at this hearing. By way of example, throughout the hearing, he categorically denied the allegations, stating that the HCPC witnesses had not told the truth and that their evidence amounted to a ‘character assassination’. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s vehement denial of the underlying facts and assertion of bad faith by the HCPC witnesses, was such that, applying the principle from the case of Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283, this was a factor that it could quite properly take into account in determining the level of the Registrant’s insight.

117. The Panel noted that the Registrant had purported to apologise in his email of 29 January 2023 for his actions. In that email he stated:

"I have spent the past few days thinking and reflecting to an event that led to inappropriately behaviour [sic] towards any female colleague…However, I hereby. To apologise to any female colleague that I caused then any harm. I am sorry for my inappropriate behaviour. My actions were inappropriate, and I failed to show maturity and professionalism. I am embarrassed by this behaviour leading to a raise complaint against me, and this is unacceptable. I promise that this inappropriate behaviour will not happen in future…I sill take all feedback yet to be given and the next time I find myself in such a situation, I will handle it in a mature and professional way.”

118. However, in his written closing submissions dated 10 April 2025, the Registrant stated that: “I submitted an apology before receiving details of the allegations, under extreme stress and while managing [a health issue]. This was a misguided attempt to de-escalate, not an admission of guilt.” In the circumstances, the Panel felt unable to place any significant weight on what would otherwise have been an insightful reflection in his email of 29 January 2023.

119. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had neither made any meaningful expression of regret or remorse, nor sincerely apologised for his actions. He had not demonstrated that he understood the impact of his actions, either on Colleague A, or on the profession generally.

120. The Registrant stated that he had taken positive steps, to address his behaviour, for example by undertaking CPD courses to remediate his failings. However, he had not produced any CPD certificates, to indicate what progress he had made in addressing his failings.

121. As such, the Panel concluded that, whilst his attitudinal failings were capable of being remediated, such failings were difficult to remediate and the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had, in practice, remediated his failings in this regard such that it could conclude that his misconduct was highly unlikely to be repeated. On the contrary, given his limited insight and absence of persuasive evidence of remediation, the Panel concluded that there remained a significant ongoing risk of his misconduct being repeated. In that regard, noting that this case relates to sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague, it could not rule out in the circumstances that such conduct could be repeated with patients.

122. As such, in relation to the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

123. The Panel also took into account the overarching objectives of the HCPC to protect, promote, and maintain the health, safety, and wellbeing of the public and patients, and to uphold and protect the wider public interest, which includes promoting and maintaining public confidence in the Paramedic profession and upholding proper professional standards for members of the profession. The Panel therefore considered that, given the serious nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, relating as it did to sexually motivated behaviour that had yet to be fully remediated, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in all the circumstances.

124. Having regard to all of the above the Panel found that, by reason of his misconduct, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component of impairment.

Sanction

HCPC’s submissions

125. Mr Slack referred to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (“SP”), making reference to the sanctions available to the Panel and the approach to be adopted. He stated that he was not making any particular sanction bid and that it was a matter for the Panel to exercise its own judgment.

126. He submitted that the misconduct found proved was too serious for no further action to be taken or for the imposition of a caution.

127. Mr Slack submitted that conditions of practice were less likely to be appropriate for sexual misconduct cases. He identified the circumstances in the SP where a suspension order or indeed a striking off order may be appropriate. In reaching its decision, he invited the Panel to consider the Registrant’s lack of insight and remediation. He reminded the Panel that a striking off order was a sanction of last resort that should be reserved for the most serious cases. He also reminded the Panel that it should be mindful of the consequences of any sanction on the Registrant.

Registrant’s submissions

128. The Registrant reminded the Panel that he has positively engaged in this hearing and that he has not been subject to any other incident or concerns. He stated that as such, his conduct was out of character.

129. He reminded the Panel that he has taken classes to address his social awareness. He also stated that no interim order had been imposed on him to date.

130. He invited the Panel to impose the least restrictive sanction possible and stated that he was willing to undergo training or support to safeguard others.

Decision on Sanction

131. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the SP. He reminded the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order, and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest. It should also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors and bear in mind the principle of proportionality. He reminded the Panel that the primary purpose of imposing a sanction was protection of the public and the public interest and that there was a need to balance those interests with the interests of the Registrant.

132. In reaching its decision on whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one, the Panel has reminded itself of its conclusions in relation to the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct as set out in its determination on impairment. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant continues to pose an ongoing risk to the public and to the reputation of the profession, and that there remains a risk of repetition of his misconduct. As such, any sanction should reflect the need to uphold the public interest and mark the seriousness of the misconduct found proved.

133. In that regard, the Panel has had due regard to paragraphs 76-77 of the SP, noting the impact of sexual misconduct on public confidence which state:

Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. It includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating someone. The misconduct can be directed towards:

• service users, carers and family members;
• colleagues; and
• members of the public.

Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction. Where it deviates from this approach, it should provide clear reasoning.

134. The Panel considered all the information before it. In doing so, the Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• That the Registrant’s sexual misconduct was deliberate and repeated over a two month period;
• There has only been a limited expression of remorse, regret or apology;
• The Registrant has not meaningfully demonstrated that he has remediated his failings; and
• The Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his failings.

135. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• The Registrant does not have any previous regulatory findings recorded against him and no prior or subsequent complaints have been made; and
• He has positively engaged in the regulatory process.

136. Considering all the circumstances in the round, the Panel considered the Registrant’s sexual misconduct to be at the higher end of the spectrum of sexual misconduct.

137. The Panel approached the issue of sanction starting with the least restrictive first, bearing in mind the need for proportionality and to take into account the Registrant’s interests. Having done so, it concluded that taking no further action would not reflect the nature and gravity of the misconduct. The Panel concluded that taking no action would not be adequate to protect the public or the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process given the ongoing risks identified. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

138. The Panel next considered mediation, but having had due regard to the circumstances of this case, such an outcome was inappropriate to address a finding of sexual misconduct. It therefore concluded that this was not an appropriate outcome.

139. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99-102 of the SP. The Panel concluded that this was also not an appropriate outcome because:

• For the reasons set out in its determination on misconduct in relation to sexual misconduct and current impairment, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s misconduct to be minor in nature;
• The Registrant has demonstrated limited insight;
• The Panel considered that there remained an ongoing risk of repetition given the lack of effective remediation of his failings.

140. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate. It had regard to paragraphs 105-109 of the SP. It has concluded that such a sanction would neither be appropriate nor proportionate to address the public interest concerns identified. The Panel concluded that workable and appropriate conditions could not be formulated that would meaningfully address the attitudinal concerns identified in relation to the Registrant’s sexual misconduct. In any event, the Panel concluded that the nature of the misconduct found proved was too serious for such a sanction.

141. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that imposing a Conditions of Practice Order was not the appropriate sanction to impose.

142. The Panel next considered the sanction of suspension. It had regard to paragraph 121 of the SP. The Panel has borne in mind that this would be an appropriate sanction to impose where, even though the allegation is serious, the conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with the Registrant remaining on the register, the Registrant had insight and that the issues were unlikely to be repeated, factors that the Panel concluded were absent in this case.

143. In all the circumstances and given the identified risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel concluded that the imposition of a Suspension Order was neither the appropriate nor proportionate sanction to impose. Persistent unwanted sexually motivated behaviour towards a colleague, the Panel concluded amounted to behaviour that was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.

144. The Panel therefore considered whether a striking-off order was appropriate and in doing so, took account of paragraphs 130 – 132 of the SP. The Panel concluded that in order to protect the public and the public interest, any sanction less than a striking off order would not be appropriate. The Panel determined that given the nature and gravity of the matters found proved and the ongoing risks identified, a lesser sanction would lack the necessary deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel therefore concluded that a striking-off order was the appropriate sanction to impose because:

• The matters found proved, as set out in the Panel’s determination on misconduct, represented serious breaches of the Standards in relation to persistent unwanted sexually motivated conduct; and
• For the reasons set out earlier in this determination, the Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his conduct.

145. The Panel has considered the Registrant’s interests. However, in light of its findings, the Panel considered that the need to protect the public and the public interest by sending a clear message upholding and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, outweighed the Registrant's interests.

146. The Panel accordingly determined to impose a Striking Off order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Abdul Hakim Mohammed from the Register with effect from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

147. Mr Slack applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months in light of the Panel’s substantive findings on the grounds that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest to cover the appeal period. He referred to the SP with particular reference to paragraphs 133 onwards with reference to interim orders.

148. No submissions were made by the Registrant.

Decision

149. The Panel was mindful that when a substantive sanction is imposed, a Registrant’s entitlement to practise is unrestricted whilst their appeal rights against the substantive sanction remain outstanding. The Panel concluded that in view of its determination that a Striking-off Order should be imposed, it would not be appropriate for the Registrant to return to unrestricted practice given the Registrant’s limited insight and lack of demonstrable remediation and the ongoing risk of repetition of his misconduct.

150. The Panel therefore decided to impose an interim order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, it being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest, which outweighed the Registrant’s personal and professional interests.

151. It first considered an Interim Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel concluded that such an interim order would not be appropriate given its rationale for its earlier determination on sanction. It considered that in light of that determination, an Interim Suspension Order was necessary for protection of the public and was also in the public interest. It would be wholly incompatible with the Panel’s findings and its decision as to sanction not to impose an Interim Suspension Order.

152. The Panel concluded that the appropriate length of the Interim Suspension Order should be 18 months, as the interim order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal in the event that the Registrant submits a Notice of Appeal within the 28-day period.

ORDER

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order 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 Abdul Hakim Mohammed

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
14/04/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off