Mohammed F Siddiqui

Background

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

Preliminary Matters

Service

10. The service bundle provided to the Panel contained a copy of a Notice of Hearing dated 4 December 2024 which was emailed to the Registrant’s registered email address on the same date. The Notice of Hearing informed the Registrant that the date of the review was 6 January 2025 and confirmed that the hearing would be via video conference. Enclosed with the Notice of Hearing was the hearing bundle and information to enable the Registrant an opportunity to attend and participate.

11. On the 11 December 2024 the Registrant sent an email to the HCPC which stated as follows, “I have been notified of my hearing to be held in the New year 15 th Jan I’m sorry but I would like my hearing date to be postponed until a later date.” (sic)

12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to Article 30(9) of the Health Professions Order 2001 which sets out that a registrant must be given the opportunity to appear. In the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given that opportunity.

Application for part of the hearing to be in private.

13. The Panel heard an application from Ms Mosley for part of the hearing to be held in private as there were aspects of the hearing which relate to the health of the Registrant. It was submitted that the application was made to preserve confidential health information relating to the Registrant.

14. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules and took into account the Guidance Note “Conducting Proceedings in Private”. It noted the presumption that hearings are held in public for transparency and openness in regulatory proceedings. The Panel determined to hold the hearing partially in private as it was clear from the application for an adjournment that this aspect related to the health and private life of the Registrant. The Panel determined it was necessary to hold this part of the hearing in private in order to maintain confidentiality and was in the interests of justice.

15. The Panel had regard to the email dated 11 December 2024 from the Registrant which requested an adjournment on the basis of his health.

16. This email was not picked up by the HCPC. An email was sent by the hearings officer to the Registrant on 19 December 2024 enquiring if he was attending the hearing and whether he had documents to submit. In response on 24 December 2024 the Registrant sent a further email which stated:

“Please could I kindly refer you to the email I’ve already sent to request a Postponement of this hearing to another date.
Please could you kindly postpone this hearing.” (sic)

17. On 2 January 2025 a case manager on behalf of the HCPC sent an email which advised the Registrant that the application would be considered by the Panel on the morning of the hearing. The Registrant was advised that he should attend and provide additional supporting information such as a letter from his GP.

18. On the 4 January 2025 the Registrant’s representative Dr Siddiqui sent an email on behalf of the Registrant which stated as follows:

“I am writing this email on behalf of my client, Mr Siddiqui.
Unfortunately, he will not be in a position to attend the hearing [REDACTED] I do believe my client has informed you of this and was asked to procure a letter from the GP. Unfortunately, due to the vacation period this has not proven possible but I have been notified that my client intends to secure this at the earliest available opportunity.
Mr Siddiqui will not be able to attend the hearing and therefore, we require an adjournment.”

19. Dr Siddiqui did not attend the hearing and was unable to be contacted on the morning of the hearing.

20. Ms Mosley on behalf of the HCPC made no positive submission to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and stated that the HCPC were neutral on the application for an adjournment. Ms Mosley set out the background to the adjournment application and also submitted that in the circumstances the HCPC had modified its original position of seeking a striking off order as set out in the skeleton argument and submitted that a continuation of the current order for a period of 3 months would enable the Registrant to participate in a future review. Alternatively, he would be in a position to request an early review of that order.

21. Ms Mosley drew the Panel’s attention to the relevant factors to consider when making a decision to adjourn. Ms Mosley also reminded the Panel that the order should be reviewed before its expiry on 11 February 2025.

22. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel’s discretion to proceed in the Registrant's absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution. She referred the panel to the cases of R v Hayward, Jones and Purvis in the Court of Appeal [2001] EWCA Crim 168 and GMC V Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. She advised that the Adeogba case reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and the public interest and that the “fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against medical practitioners is of very real importance”. It further stated that, “where there is good reason not to proceed the case should be adjourned where there is not however it is only right that it should proceed.”

23. The panel has also taken into account the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and “Adjournments and Postponements”. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to take into account that an adjournment is not simply there for the asking and the Panel should scrutinise the application with care.

Decision
24. The Panel has taken into account the submissions of the parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

25. It has considered very carefully the application for an adjournment and balanced this with fairness to the Registrant and its duty to protect the public.

26. The Panel concluded that it would not be in the public interest or the Registrant’s interests to adjourn the proceedings without reviewing the order. The hearing would have to be re-listed before the order expired on 11 February 2025 which would be unlikely to be sufficient time for the Registrant to be fit to attend. The Panel had no independent medical evidence regarding the Registrant’s health. In these circumstances, such a short adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance.

27. However, the Panel noted that the Registrant had attended previous proceedings and engaged with the process. The Panel noted that in his email of 24 December 2024 the Registrant confirmed that he was not declining to attend.

28. The Panel considered that it was clear from the emails that the Registrant continued to wish to engage.

29. The Panel considered that there would be a disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding with the review today. The Panel was mindful that a Substantive Order Review places a persuasive burden upon the Registrant to demonstrate that the issues that led to the making of the substantive order have been addressed and in being unable to attend the Registrant would be unable to discharge that burden. However, the Panel balanced this with the need to protect the public and review the order before its expiry.

30. The Panel considered that it had sufficient information to review the order today and it could mitigate the impact of any unfairness to the Registrant by considering the nature and duration of any order in light of his current health.

31. The Panel's remit on this Review is to determine whether the Registrant's fitness to practise remains impaired, and, if so, how to approach any sanction, with reference to its powers under Article 30(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Consolidated Health Professions Order 2001, as amended (the Order).

32. The Panel considered whether the Registrant's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his misconduct. It took into account the evidence before it within the skeleton argument and to the amended submission of Ms Mosley. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had particular regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired. It recognised that the decision on impairment was a matter for its own independent judgment. The Panel also noted that it was entitled to take into account and give respect to the previous panel's reasons and conclusions, but that this Panel should approach its remit independently, based on the evidence before it today. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness remains impaired by reason of his misconduct. It concluded that both the personal and the public component is engaged. Its reasons were as follows;

• There has been no material change in the underlying facts of this case since the substantive hearing.
• The Registrant has not provided any evidence of compliance with any of the suggestions made by the substantive or reviewing panels as to what might assist the Panel.
• There are no substantive references or testimonials and there is no documentation or submissions from the Registrant to assist.
• Whilst there is some evidence that the Registrant has been suffering from ill health, there is no detailed evidence about the impact that this has had on the Registrant and there is no evidence of remediation.
• The Panel has concluded that there is a risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct and thus a continuing risk to service users.
• The Panel further concluded that public confidence in the profession of Radiography and in the HCPC as its regulator would be undermined if a finding of present impairment was not made. The Panel also concluded that such a finding was necessary to maintain proper standards of conduct within the profession.

33. Having concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel next considered the available sanctions. In reaching its decision on Sanction, the Panel noted its powers under Article 30(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Order. It accepted the Legal Assessor's advice and took into account the HCPTS' Sanctions Policy.

34. The Panel considered that to take no action and allow the order to expire or to impose a caution order would provide no protection to the public and would not address the public interest. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate given the lack of information about any remediation or change since the last hearing.

35. The Panel then considered extending the current Suspension Order. Given the position adopted by the HCPC the Panel determined that a Suspension Order for a period of 3 months would be the appropriate and proportionate order. Such an order would protect the public and address the public interest and allow the Registrant to sufficiently recover and attend a future review. In addition, should the Registrant feel well enough to participate before the expiry of the order he could request an early review. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel had in mind the principle of proportionality; not to impose a more restrictive order than is necessary to protect the public and sustain the public interest.

36. The HCPC had, in its skeleton argument, suggested that a Striking Off Order might be an option for this Panel. However, the Panel also noted that Ms Mosley had submitted that an extension of the current suspension would continue to protect the public and allow the Registrant an opportunity to recover and participate. The Panel concluded that given the Registrant’s current health, his previous engagement with proceedings and his application for an adjournment, it would be unfair and disproportionate to make a Striking Off Order today.

37. This Panel was mindful that the HCPC could ask a future reviewing Panel for a Striking Off Order if the Registrant did not show the appropriate remediation to a future panel. This Panel endorsed the the recommendations of the previous reviewing panel about the material that may assist a future panel.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Mohammed Siddiqui for a further period of 3 months from the date of expiry of the current Order. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 11 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