Imran Khan

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a Notice of Hearing dated 23 May 2025 which had been sent by the HCPC to the registered email address of the Registrant on that date.

2. The HCPC provided a signed Certificate dated 23 May 2025 which confirmed the Registrant’s email address, as well as the delivery receipt confirming that the email had been received at the relevant email address on 23 May 2025.

3. It was established that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s correct registered address. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

4. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been properly served in accordance with the Health Professions Council (Investigating Committee) (Procedure Rules) 2003 Health and the Health Care Professionals Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) rules Order of Council 2021, which have been in force since 4 March 2021. These rules provide express provision for the HCPC to serve notices via electronic email and hold hearings via audio and video link where necessary.

5. The Panel was also content that more than 28 days’ notice had been given.

Proceeding in Absence.

6. The HCPC applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

7. The HCPC submitted that there was no evidence from the Registrant that an adjournment would secure his attendance on a future occasion.

8. It was submitted that it was in the public interest to proceed expeditiously with the substantive order review. The HCPC submitted that it was in the public interest to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, and was fair and proportionate in all the circumstances to do so.

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor directed the Panel to the ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ HCPTS Practice Note dated June 2022. Principles from the cases of GMC v Adeogba (2016) EWCA Civ1 62, Ramaswamy v GMC (2021) EWHC (1619) (Admin), GMC v Visvardis (2004) EWCA Civ 162 and R v Jones (Anthony William) HL 20 Feb 2002 were summarised for the Panel.

10. The Panel acknowledged that there was a disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding in his absence. However, there was also a public interest in going ahead with a mandatory review of the current suspension order before it expired. The Registrant had provided no submissions and had not made any application for an adjournment.

11. The Panel noted that this was not the first time the Registrant had not responded to correspondence from the HCPC during mandatory review proceedings. It noted that the Registrant’s last contact with the HCPC was prior to the December 2024 review. More recently, the Registrant had not responded to emails or telephone calls from the HCPC. The Panel therefore found that an adjournment was unlikely to ensure the Registrant’s attendance on a later date. It found that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself, and that in all the circumstances it was both necessary and in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence.

Proceeding in Private.

12. The HCPC applied for any part of the hearing that related to the Registrant’s health to be heard in private. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful of the open justice principle and the exceptions to this. It agreed that any background information referring to specific details of the Registrant’s health matters should be heard in private in order to respect his right to privacy as to these matters.

Background

13. The Registrant was employed as a Podiatrist by Walsall Health Care NHS Trust (the Trust) between 12 August 2019 and October 2020.

14. In Private

15. Concerns were also identified relating to the Registrant’s inadequate record-keeping in respect of fourteen patients.

16. Following a period of leave in March 2020, the Registrant was taken off clinical duties due to the concerns raised regarding his patient care and he was to work as a Clinical Support Worker (CSW) to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the course of a two-day health and safety training day at the hospital, designed to prepare him for this role, the Registrant was witnessed introducing himself as a doctor. Thereafter he was redeployed to administrative duties.

Substantive panel decision on impairment and sanction

17. In its determination in relation to current impairment, the substantive panel stated:

“In relation to the Registrant’s record-keeping, in assessing future risk the Panel noted that whilst the Registrant had reflected on the importance of accurate record-keeping and had attended a relevant course in February 2022, he had not meaningfully demonstrated what he had learned from that course. In addition, because the Registrant has not been working in a clinical post in the interim since he left the Trust, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated there were no longer any ongoing concerns and that he now fully complied with his professional obligations within a clinical setting. As such, the Panel concluded that it was not satisfied that the Registrant had, in practice, remediated his failing in this regard. In the circumstances, it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of repetition of his lack of competence.

As such, in relation to the Registrant’s lack of competence, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

In relation to dishonesty, the Panel recognised that dishonesty is difficult to remediate. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s reflective statement and was satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight into his dishonesty. Whilst recognising that he would not now lie about driving or state that he was a doctor, the Panel concluded that his insight was limited because it was not satisfied that he had meaningfully reflected and demonstrated insight into the impact of dishonesty on the reputation of the profession generally. The Panel also took into account that the matters found proved reflected repeated acts of dishonesty over a six-month period in relation to separate and distinct events. Given the Panel’s finding that the Registrant’s insight was limited, it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of dishonest behaviour, albeit that it may not be in relation to the exact same circumstances as arose in this case.

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

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 Chiropodist / Podiatrist profession and upholding proper professional standards for members of the profession. The Panel therefore considered that, given the serious nature of the dishonesty found proved and the Registrant’s lack of competence 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.

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

18. In considering sanction, the substantive panel stated that it had identified the following aggravating factors:

o “That the Registrant behaved dishonestly in relation to two separate issues over a six-month period;

o That the Registrant drove on at least three or four occasions when he should not have done so, thereby repeatedly putting himself and others at risk.”

19. The substantive panel identified the following mitigating factors:

o “The Registrant engaged in the regulatory process and made early admissions to a number of particulars, including one allegation of dishonesty, at the outset of the hearing;

o The Registrant had difficult health and personal circumstances at the time which impacted on his performance.

o The Registrant provided a positive testimonial attesting to his character and professionalism. However, the Panel attached less weight to that reference than might otherwise have been the case, given that the author had not worked with the Registrant since 2017 and had only done so for approximately five months. The Panel also noted that the referee made no comment on the current allegations or that he was aware of them.”

20. The substantive panel stated:

“In identifying mitigating factors, the Panel considered that it was incumbent on the Registrant to familiarise himself with the Trust’s procedures, particularly handwriting patient notes, and therefore attached little weight to Mr James’ submission in this regard.

Similarly, whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant has undertaken a record-keeping course, the Panel considered that the Registrant has not meaningfully demonstrated what he took from the course nor demonstrated how he has effectively put his learning into practice.

Considering all of the circumstances in the round, the Panel considered the Registrant’s dishonesty to be towards the centre of the spectrum of dishonesty.”

21. The substantive panel considered the available sanctions taking account of proportionality and decided that the appropriate sanction was a period of 4 months’ suspension.

22. In its written determination the substantive panel explained that it considered that this was the appropriate sanction to impose because:

o “The matters found proved, as set out in the determination on misconduct, represented serious breaches of the HCPC “Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics”;

o The Registrant demonstrated some insight into his failings, particularly in relation to Particular 1;

o The Registrant had developed some insight into his dishonest behaviour even though that process was not as yet complete.”

23. The substantive panel stated that a future reviewing panel would be assisted by:

a. Further evidence of remediation in relation to record-keeping;

b. Evidence of reflection by the Registrant on his conduct, demonstrating meaningful insight into the impact of his dishonest behaviour on the wider profession and the public;

c. Up-to-date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;

d. Evidence that the Registrant has kept his skills and knowledge up to date;

e. Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.

Review hearing 22 August 2023

24. The Registrant did not attend the first substantive review hearing, held on 22 August 2023. The first substantive review panel concluded that it had no new or up to date information from the Registrant, for example about his current circumstances or any action he may have taken towards remedying his misconduct and lack of competence, or further developing his insight. The first review panel agreed with the findings of the substantive panel and concluded that there remained a risk to service users and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public component of impairment.

25. In relation to sanction, the first review panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order was to extend the suspension order for a further period of 12 months. That panel considered the information which is likely to assist a future review panel remained the same as recommended by the original panel, but emphasized to the Registrant that the information or evidence that he provides may relate to paid, unpaid or voluntary work.

Second review hearing of 13 September 2024

26. The Registrant attended the second review hearing and provided the following evidence:

I. Letter from the GP to the HCPC (dated 13 January 2021);

II. Letter from Dr Zan Abbas (dated 12 June 2024);

III. Certificate of CPD (dated 29 August 2024);

IV. Record Keeping and Consent CPD (dated 29 October 2021);

V. Registrant’s Reflection Statement (undated).

27. In response to panel questions the Registrant said that he had used social media videos and YouTube videos to further his professional development, and that he had recorded his reflections in the form of video diaries, although he accepted that he had not provided these to his regulator. The Registrant also stated that he had discussions with fellow graduates but had no details of those discussions to provide to the panel. He said that he accepted the findings of the substantive panel.

28. In considering current impairment, the second review panel concluded that the Registrant had shown some remorse and remediation. He had stated that he accepted the findings of the substantive panel. He had provided a reflective statement and had evidenced one area of CPD completed by him.

29. The second review panel concluded that the Registrant’s reflective statement provided sufficient remediation for Particulars 1, 5 and 6. The panel concluded that the Registrant had reflected sufficiently on the impact of his actions relating to dishonesty and was satisfied that the risk of repetition of this behaviour was now low.

30. However, the second panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had provided sufficient evidence of remediation for Particular 2. The Registrant informed that panel orally that he had conducted further remediation and reflection in the form of online research and video recordings, but he had not evidenced this for his regulator or the panel.

31. In those circumstances the second review panel concluded that there remains a likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s past behaviour in Particular 2 if he were to be allowed to practise unrestricted, and that the risk of harm to the public if permitted to practise unrestricted remains.

32. The second review panel concluded that the Registrant remains impaired on the personal component by reason of his lack of competence in Particular 2.

33. The second review panel also concluded that public confidence in the profession and the declaring of proper standards of conduct and performance demanded a finding of impairment in relation to Particular 2 given the seriousness of the matters found proved.

34. The second review panel decided to further extend the suspension order for a period of 4 months. It considered that this would enable the Registrant to evidence his remediation and further develop his insight.

35. The second review panel considered that the following information is likely to assist a future review panel. The information or evidence that he provides may relate to paid, unpaid or voluntary work.

- Further evidence of remediation in relation to record-keeping in the form of a portfolio demonstrating reflection and learning

- Up-to-date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;

- Evidence that the Registrant has kept his skills and knowledge up to date;

- Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.

Third Review hearing of 17 December 2024

36. The Registrant did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence or submissions to the third review panel. That panel bore in mind that in accordance with the guidance in the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin), there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant at the review to demonstrate that he has sufficiently addressed the past impairment.

37. The third review panel considered that the Registrant had previously been given clear guidance on the information which he should provide to assist this panel, but he had not engaged with the recommendations or provided any information for that panel to review.

38. The third review panel concluded that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden upon him to satisfy it that he was fit to practise. It found that the concerns of the substantive hearing and the review hearings relating to his competence remain unaddressed. In the absence of information, that panel concluded that there remained a risk to service users, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.

39. The third review panel was mindful that its maximum powers remained those of suspension. It imposed a sanction of suspension for 6 months, to enable the Registrant to engage and demonstrate that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired at the date of the next review. The panel also drew the attention of the Registrant to the fact that a striking off order would be available to the next review panel.

This Hearing (fourth review hearing) – 21 June 2025.

HCPC Submissions.

40. The HCPC submitted that the current Suspension Order was due to expire on 22 July 2025. It was submitted that the persuasive burden was on the Registrant to show his fitness to practise was no longer impaired. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC process and there was therefore no information to suggest that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired.

41. It was submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant had not engaged for some time. It was also submitted that the Panel should have regard to both the personal and public component of impairment and that the Registrant remained impaired on both components. Since the substantive review hearing concluded on 17 December 2024, it was submitted that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC.

42. The HCPC noted that strike off was now an available sanction, and confirmed that in its view, given the ongoing impairment of fitness to practise and the lack of engagement from the Registrant, this was a proportionate sanction that was available to the Panel.

Legal Advice.

43. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of its powers as set out in Article 30 (1) of the Health Professions Order, and referred it to the HCPTS practise note ‘Review of Article 20 Sanction Orders’ dated November 2023. Relevant case law was summarised for the benefit of the Panel, including the cases of Abraheam v GMC (2009) EWC (admin), PSA v HCPC and Doree (2019) EWCA Civ 319, Cohen v GMC (2008) ECHC 157 and Khan v GMC (2010) UKSC 64.

Decision.

44. The Panel was mindful that its role was to consider the Registrant’s fitness to practice as of today’s date. It was not able to go behind the decision of either the substantive hearing panel or the previous reviewing panels.

45. The Panel determined that it had no evidence that anything had changed since the last review. It noted that at that stage, the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired in relation to his competence only.

46. It was noted by the Panel that the previous review decision in December 2024 gave the Registrant clear guidance as to how he could go about addressing the outstanding fitness to practise concerns. It also noted that the third review panel had sent the Registrant a very strong message within its decision about the next panel’s power to strike off.

47. The Panel was mindful of the legal advice it had received, and was aware that there was a persuasive burden on the Registrant to show that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired. Despite this, the Registrant had not engaged in any meaningful way with the HCPC since September 2024.

48. It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant had not provided any information to show that he had remedied the issues in respect of the competence matters. In addition, the Panel found that the Registrant had produced nothing to show that he had remedied the failings or taken action to reduce the risk of harm to patients caused by his lack of competence in the future.

49. It was the view of the Panel that, even without employment within the profession, there were courses that the Registrant could have gone on to attempt to remedy his competence issues. The Panel found that his lack of engagement with the regulator was indicative of a lack of willingness to remedy his failings. The risk of repetition with regards to poor record keeping had not reduced, and presented a risk of harm to patients going forwards. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the personal component.

50. It was also the finding of the Panel that a member of the public, knowing of all the circumstances of the case, would be concerned if the Registrant was able to resume practise without having remedied his failings. There would be a loss of confidence in both the profession and the regulator if the Registrant were permitted to resume unrestricted practise without having remedied his past failings. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the public component.

51. Having found the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on both components, the Panel then moved on to consider Sanction. It had regard to the relevant HCPC Sanctions policy. It considered that making no order or imposing a caution order would not protect the public from potential harm. These options were not appropriate to manage the risks identified.

52. The Panel then considered whether there were any conditions of practise that could be imposed. Theoretically, it found that if the Registrant had worked on his failings and engaged with the HCPC, conditions might have been possible. However, the Panel had no knowledge of the Registrant’s current employment and nothing before it to suggest that the Registrant was willing or able to comply with any conditions it might impose. It was therefore not possible to formulate any conditions that would protect the public.

53. The Panel then moved on to consider Suspension. It noted that the Registrant has now been suspended for over two years. Although he had been said by previous panels to have gained insight in respect of his previous dishonesty, the lack of competence remained. The Panel noted that suspension can be an appropriate sanction when the issues are unlikely to be repeated and where there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy failings. The Panel found that, whilst this might have been the case during earlier review hearings, over two years since the original suspension the Registrant had still not carried out suitable remediation.

54. The Panel was extremely concerned with the lack of engagement from the Registrant. It found that, by failing to engage, the Registrant demonstrated an ongoing lack of insight as to the purpose of regulation and a lack of commitment to pursing his profession. It was the view of the Panel, therefore, that Suspension was no longer an appropriate or proportionate sanction.

55. Finally, the Panel considered a striking off order. It was mindful that this was an order of last resort, and was a long term sanction. The Panel noted for this case that, according to the HCPCs Sanctions Policy, a strike off order may be appropriate if the Registrant lacked insight and was unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel found that this was now the case. The Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC at all in respect of this review hearing. For this and the last review, there were no submissions evidencing remediation into the failures in his record keeping. Despite all the opportunities he had been given by previous review panels, the Registrant had still not resolved the incompetence matters. Further, his ongoing failure to engage or provide any explanation to the HCPC as to his current circumstances, despite the clear guidance from past panels, was indicative of both a lack of insight and an unwillingness to remedy his failings.

56. The Panel found that a further suspension was unlikely to achieve anything in terms of either the Registrant’s engagement or his willingness to remedy his failings. The Panel was mindful that its duty was to protect the public, and that it was not in the public interest for the Registrant to be continuously suspended from the Register and remain in the review cycle when he had made no efforts to engage since the last review.

57. The Panel found that matters had reached a stage when the Registrant was unwilling or unable to remedy his failings. His fitness to practise had been impaired on both components for over two years. The Registrant was now not engaging with fitness to practise proceedings despite the HCPC’s efforts to engage with him, and the Panel had nothing before it to suggest that he would do so in future. It therefore determined that a Striking Off Order was a necessary and proportionate sanction.

58. Having made the above finding, the Panel determined that it would be inconsistent with this to allow the current Suspension Order to remain in place. The Panel therefore revoked the Suspension Order with immediate effect and replaced this with a Striking Off order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Imran Khan from the Register with immediate effect.

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

Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Imran Khan