Mohammed F Siddiqui

Preliminary Matters

Privacy application

1. At the outset of the hearing Ms Khorassani, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for parts of the hearing to be conducted in private on the basis that the Registrant’s health would be referred to during the course of the hearing.

2. Mr Siddiqui did not object to the HCPC’s application.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’) and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note titled “Conducting Proceedings in Private”.

4. The Panel noted the presumption that hearings are held in public for transparency and openness in regulatory proceedings and having done so, the Panel determined to hold the hearing partially in private. The Panel had regard to Ms Khorassani’s submissions to it that reference would be made to the Registrant’s health and the Panel considered that the Registrant may suffer disproportionate damage if it did not do so.

Background

5. The Registrant qualified as a Radiographer in 1986. At the time of the Allegations above he was employed by Salford Royal NHS Trust. At a final hearing on 20-22 September 2010 and 12 January 2011, these allegations were found proved. The panel found that between 2003 and 2008, the Registrant was involved in incidents when he scanned patients incorrectly and gave advice outside the scope of his practise. He delayed reporting the results of scans and his results could not be verified. He examined patients without a supervisor and made derogatory comments about a colleague. The Registrant performed an intimate scan on a patient that was not clinically justified and was found to be sexually motivated. The failings identified above constituted misconduct and lack of competence. The Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The panel determined that his name should be struck off the HCPC Register. At that time, he was known as Mr Mohammed Faheem.

6. In November 2022 the restoration panel was satisfied that the Registrant had undertaken significant steps to address the findings that were made at the time of his striking off. The Registrant had worked in a teaching and audit role and appeared to have performed well in this role and to be well respected by his line manager and students. On the basis of the Registrant’s evidence in relation to the work that he had undertaken in that role, coupled with the training that he had undertaken, and the statements from NE, the panel was satisfied that the Registrant met the standard of proficiency for registration.

7. The panel was satisfied that the Registrant had reflected on the incidents that resulted in his original striking off and had shown a degree of insight. The Registrant stated in his evidence that he had reflected significantly. He expressed genuine remorse for his conduct and had an understanding of the serious lapse in his professionalism. He explained that he had been experiencing some very difficult personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct, but he had taken steps to resolve these including undertaking counselling at his own expense.

8. The panel noted that the Registrant did not seek to go behind the findings of the previous panel and accepted responsibility for his actions. He did not seek to blame others or excuse his conduct. He explained that he was not thinking clearly at the relevant time and that he no longer considered the allegations were a conspiracy against him. He explained that he did not recognise himself, and although he was faced with difficult circumstances, he accepted that he had made poor judgements which were wholly out of character, given his previously long unblemished career.

9. He explained that if faced with circumstances similar to the ones which led to his being struck off the Register, he would do things differently. He understood the importance of clear communication and record keeping and reporting results without delay. He was able to explain the importance of chaperones and, if permitted to return to the Register, he would ensure that one was present at all times. The Registrant was realistic about the level of his skills and readily admitted that he would require refresher training in relation to some aspects of his practice. The panel considered that the Registrant had taken significant steps since his striking off to address the issues identified.

10. However, that panel was not satisfied that it was appropriate for the Registrant to return to unrestricted practice. The restoration panel had some residual concerns in relation to his level of insight into the potential impact that his actions might have had on patients and the profession. The panel considered his reflection was lacking in this aspect. In addition, the panel was concerned that the Registrant had not fully reflected on the sexual misconduct element and although it did not consider he was at risk of repeating his misconduct, it concluded that his reflection on the impact his conduct had on Patient A was lacking.

11. The restoration panel noted that although the Registrant had been successfully working in a role related to sonography, he had no recent experience working as an autonomous Radiographer. That panel was nevertheless satisfied that conditions could be formulated to adequately address these concerns. Demonstration of successfully working under supervision and appropriate commitment to a Personal Development Plan would be necessary before a panel could consider his return to unrestricted practice.

12. The Application for restoration was granted on 16 November 2020 with a Conditions of Practice Order being imposed, as follows:

“The Registrar is directed to restore the name of Mohammed Faheem (the Registrant) to the Radiographer Part of the Register, but restoration is only to take effect once the Registrant has:
a. provided the Registrar with any information and declarations required for admission to the Register;
b. paid the prescribed restoration fee; [and]
c. satisfied the Registrar that, in relation to the Registrant, there is or will be in force appropriate cover under an indemnity arrangement.
The Registrar is further directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (the Operative Date), the Registrant must
comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must only undertake work that requires registration by the HCPC with your current employer.
2. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment and provide your employment details.
3. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary or capability proceedings taken against you by any employer employing you to undertake any role that requires you to be registered with the HCPC.
4. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c) any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
5. You must not carry out any of the following procedures unsupervised, until you have been signed off as competent to undertake these procedures independently, by your workplace supervisor;
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning
6. You must not carry out trans-vaginal scans.
7. You must not carry out any other procedures unsupervised unless you have completed refresher training and you have been signed off as competent by your workplace supervisor.
8. Except in life threatening emergencies you must not be involved in the direct provision of services to female patients without a chaperone being present.
9. You must maintain a record of:
a) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to female patients, in each case signed by the chaperone; and
b) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to such services in a life-threatening emergency and without a chaperone being present
10. You must provide a copy of these records to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review of this order.
11. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 3 weeks of the Operative date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.
12. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in your practical experience of the following areas of your practice:
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning
v) Record Keeping
13. Within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.
14. You must meet with your supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
15. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
16. You must provide a copy of your completed Personal Development Plan to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.
17. You must produce a reflective piece detailing the progress you have made in developing your insight regarding impact of your misconduct on patients and the wider profession and including any learning. The completed reflective piece to be provided to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.
18. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

13. On the 15 January 2024 the Conditions of Practice Order was reviewed by a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee. That panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and considered that there had been a lack of progress since the last hearing relating to remediation and insight. That panel noted that the Registrant had breached a number of paragraphs of the Conditions of Practice order and had not engaged with them in any meaningful way since they came into effect in August 2022. That Panel therefore considered that the Registrant would not comply with any future Conditions of Practice and imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

14. On 06 January 2025, a panel reviewed the existing Suspension Order and having regard to the case and evidence before it, it concluded that the Registrant remained impaired as there had been no material change in the underlying facts, the Registrant had not provided any evidence of compliance with any of the suggestions made by the substantive hearing panel nor had the Registrant provided any references or testimonials to assist it. That panel therefore determined to extend the Suspension Order for a period of 3 months.

Submissions:

HCPC:

15. Ms Khorassani drew the Panel’s attention to the material contained within the HCPC (141 page) bundle. She also drew the Panel’s attention to the background and circumstances of the case leading up to today’s review.

16. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant’s practice remains impaired and she invited the Panel to strike the Registrant from the HCPC Register.
The Registrant:

17. The Registrant elected not to give oral evidence to the Panel. He made oral submissions, which were augmented by his supporter, his wife. They made the following submissions to the Panel:

i. he has sufficient insight into his failings;

ii. it has been 17 years since this came about;

iii. there has been a striking off order and when under conditions of practice, these were restrictive. Therefore, if you have no patient contact, you are not able to demonstrate insight and his position has not changed since the substantive hearing;

iv. he has been unable to demonstrate insight when he has no patient contact;

v. he has reflected upon his actions in the last 17 years and he accepts the mistakes…[REDACTED];
vi. he has been able to demonstrate that his knowledge was up-to-date;

vii. with age comes the maturity and the ability to acknowledge his failings and he accepts that he should not tell patients what his opinion on any scan results would be;

viii. he is not the person he was 17 years ago and he would not do gynaecological scans in the future; and

ix. he is passionate about the profession and wants to practice.

Decision

18. The Panel took into account the documents furnished to it by the HCPC (141-page bundle) and the Registrant (included within the HCPC bundle), in addition to the 1-page testimonial from Mr C and it also had regard to the evidence before it and the parties’ submissions to it. The Panel also had regard to the substantive hearing panel’s determination. The Panel noted that it was not bound by the previous panels determination and it conducted a comprehensive review of the matter before it.

19. The Panel also considered the relevant Practice Notes issued by the HCPTS, including: ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’, together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which had, amongst other things, reminded it that the purpose of the review is to consider the issue of current impairment of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the following:

i. the Panel could have regard to a number of factors when reviewing the Order. Namely, the previous panel’s findings, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of insight and the risk of repetition;

ii. the Panel should have regard to the relevant Practice Notes (outlined above), together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Radiographer’s in England;

iii. the Panel could take account of a range of issues, when considering current impairment, which in essence comprises the two components:

• the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant; and
• the ‘public’ component: the need the protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

iv. it is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’; and

v. the principle of proportionality required the Panel to consider the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

21. In reviewing the material provided by the Registrant, the Panel noted that he had furnished the following:

i. a personal statement (outlined below);
ii. a character reference from FK;
iii. an email testimonial from ‘I’;
iv. an email testimonial from MC;
v. a statement in support from FK; and
vi. evidence of ongoing CPD;

22. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s personal statement, dated 01 April 2025, and noted it stated the following:

‘Please note my following statement is a reflective account which includes the true account of events that lead to my suspension and subsequent resignation from Hope hospital. My reason for this account is the coming forward of one person who was there and saw first hand the bullying and harassment from the toxic pair of senior personnel of radiology department. Mr MC was a student sonographer whom I took great pleasure in teaching and the only person I genuinely trusted. Because he has agreed to write a statement explaining the toxic culture exercised by the superintendent sonographer and the newly promoted radiology services manager- both disgusting evil beings! I had been extremely happy at Hope hospital enjoying my clinics and enjoying my teaching sessions to student sonographers junior radiology registrars and medical students. Once the new superintendent sonographer had been installed my life began to take a turn for the worse. Random criticism about my work and just general bullying began to affect my work. It was one such session that resulted in a female patient making a complaint that I had touched her during the internal scan and that I had scanned without a chaperone. Well for one thing my signature and the signature of my hca was written in the register. During early investigations this register mysteriously got covered in iodine solution so you could not see any names or signatures. My hca made a blatant statement saying she did not chaperone me. Three years after I had left Hope hospital I bumped into her and she broken down saying Mo I’m so sorry but they made me lie otherwise I would have been sacked and I couldn’t afford to be unemployed. The main reason for my demise was racism and pure jealousy. The radiology services manager came into my room whilst I was cleaning the ultrasound machine and pushed me against the wall and said and I state- why don’t you eff off from here you paki” I was stunned to say anything. Who could I tell and who the hell would believe me. They hadn’t believed me that I hadn’t touched the patient but pure fabrication in order to remove me. Anyway when this complaint was made against me the advice from the superintendent and the radiology services manager was accept you touched her and the hpc will go easy on you otherwise if you keep insisting you didn’t do anything wrong the hpc will ignore you and remove you from the register! So I accepted my mistake in the hope that I could continue to work. How stupid of me to trust any of these vile individuals My reflective statement is that I was so bloody stupid to trust my so called colleagues. Not one stepped forward to stand in my corner that’s how bloody evil they were. Unfortunately turning point was not the complaint made by the patient but the fact that I as asked by the consultant radiologist responsible for the ultrasound training of junior radiologists to take over their ultrasound training. This made the superintendent sonographer extremely angry and jealous hence my demise. Hcpc has done its duty in completely ruining any hope I had of working again and done its duty in preventing me from any earning potential and a reasonable pension - so thank you for destroying the twilight years of my life. It is a truly vile world we live in where if you lie cheat and deceive then you are respected but if you are God fearing and tell the truth you have no chance of a decent life! So sorry to disappoint the panel for not accepting my mistake so I could be labelled as a sexual predator l! No sorry but I will not say yes to the lies directed by the manipulative senior management of Hope hospital radiology department. I am totally broken having lost my twilight years of work and lost my chance of a decent pension. I look back with sadness regret. The nhs is rife with racism and will never treat people like me with equality. The same year that I was being hounded out of Hope hospital my niece was working in orthopaedic department of a derby hospital as an SHO where her consultant had raped a 17 yrs old patient but was never suspended or investigated. The patient subsequently tried to commit suicide four times. Her mother confirmed she has lost her daughter who just is unable to come to terms with her ordeal. So tell me where is the justice of the nhs? What a joke. Here I am nearly 17 years since I was accused in 2008 of humiliation serving a life sentence for what??? Did I kill anyone did I rape anyone?? But no why believe someone like me over my managers???!! Did anyone go to Hope hospital radiology department and investigate first hand if there was a toxic culture. No you have sat in judgement and condemned me without trying to find the truth. Ah well my working life is done so please free to nail the coffin and end it’

23. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s failings in this case, as determined by the substantive hearing panel, are fundamental and wide-ranging in nature. The Panel also noted that whilst the Registrant had attended today’s hearing in line with the previous panel’s recommendations, he had failed to comply with its other recommendations, which the panel also noted that had been reiterated to him on a number of occasions by previous panels and the HCPC in separate correspondence.

24. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant had failed to provide appropriate evidence of his recognition of his identified failings. In forming this view, the Panel had regard to both the Registrant’s reflective statement and oral submissions and considered that the Registrant’s insight had regressed since the previous review hearings. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s reflective statement focused entirely upon himself and failed to demonstrate an understanding of the severity and impact of his misconduct and lack of competence or the impact of his actions on others. Additionally, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s position remained that he was a victim of the HCPC regulatory process, rather than focussing on how he could demonstrate insight into his failings and he continued to apportion blame onto others.

25. Further, whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided some evidence of continuing professional development (‘CPD’), in the Panel’s view, the CPD undertaken by the Registrant did not address the identified failings. Additionally, the testimonials provided by the Registrant were not current and attested to the Registrants character rather than his professional practice and current roles.

26. In view of all of the aforementioned, the Panel considered that there remained a risk of repetition of the Registrant’s conduct.

27. The Panel therefore concluded that in light of the above, taking the previous panel’s findings into account, the Registrant remains impaired on the personal component.

28. The Panel then went on to consider the public component of impairment. The Panel reminded itself that part of its role was to maintain professional standards and uphold confidence in the Radiography profession. The Panel was satisfied that a member of the public, apprised of all of the circumstances of this case, would have their confidence in the profession, and the regulator, undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made on public interest grounds. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant is impaired on the public interest component also.

29. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

30. The Panel has borne in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, that any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive order that would protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel had regard to the HCPC guidance titled ‘Sanctions Policy’.

31. The Panel considered the option of a caution order. The Panel determined that a caution order would not provide adequate protection given the wide-ranging failings and ongoing risk to the public identified by the substantive hearing panel.

32. The Panel next considered the option of replacing the existing Suspension Order with a conditions of practice order. The Panel was of the view, that the Registrant had been provided with a previous opportunity to comply with a conditions of practice order, when restored to the HCPC register in 2020, and he had failed to do so. The Panel therefore determined that a conditions of practice order would not be proportionate, appropriate or workable in this case, noting in particular the Registrant’s regressed insight into his identified failings.

33. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order versus imposing a striking-off order. The Panel noted the Registrant had been the subject of a substantive order for a period of time in excess of five years, having been restored to the HCPC register in 2020. In that time, the Registrant has continued to fail to demonstrate insight and had failed to address his identified failings. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and noted that it stated that a striking off order was appropriate where the Registrant:

‘…131. 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;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.’

34. Consequently, taking into account the on-going risk that the Registrant poses to the public, the lack of insight demonstrated by him and his apparent unwillingness to resolve matters, the Panel was of the view that, notwithstanding a striking-off order being an order of last resort, in this case, it was the only sanction which was appropriate to safeguard members of the public from the risk posed by the Registrant. Further, the Panel was of the view that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mohammed Siddiqui from the Register on the date that this Order comes into effect.

The Order imposed today will apply from 09 May 2025.

Right of Appeal
An appeal may be made to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made.

History of Hearings for Mohammed F Siddiqui