Mr Mubarak Muhammad Mutawakkil

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of today’s hearing by email dated 16 September 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2023, as amended. Delivery of notice was confirmed by email of the same date.

Proceeding in absence

2. Ms Sampson made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not attended the substantive hearing and had not engaged with the HCPC since the substantive hearing or in relation to this review. He had not applied for an adjournment. The Panel inferred that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend. Today’s hearing is a mandatory review which must take place before the expiry of the Suspension Order on 14 November 2025.The Panel concluded that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment and that it was in the public interest and not unfair to the Registrant to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

Background

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist. He was employed as a “Band “Specialist “MS” (Musculo- skeletal) Physiotherapist. He commenced in the post on 21 November 2022 at the North Cumbria Integrated Care Foundation Trust (the Trust) as his first post in the UK healthcare system.

5. Following concerns about the Registrant’s clinical interactions, the Registrant was suspended from his post on 30 January 2023 and on 21 March 2023 the Registrant’s employment was terminated.

6. The HCPC received a referral regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practise on 21 February 2023, resulting in these proceedings.

7. At the substantive hearing dated 14-17 October 2024, which the Registrant did not attend, the panel found most of the Particulars of Allegation proved, as detailed above.

8. The panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of lack of competence. The panel considered that the Registrant’s lack of competence could potentially have had serious consequences for service users. However, the panel also considered it relevant that the Registrant’s failings were matters essentially of omission. The panel noted that the Registrant had been receptive and accepting of criticism and had attempted to improve his practice. The Registrant was described by witnesses as self-aware, out of his depth and, although he was initially surprised by the gaps in his skills, he accepted the views of his supervisors and became increasingly withdrawn.

18. The panel concluded that the Registrant had displayed a very low standard of performance. The panel found that there was clear evidence of a great deal of support having been put in place, to which the Registrant had appeared willing to respond but had not sufficiently improved in practice. The panel found that the statutory ground of lack of competence was made out. It considered that the lack of competence was potentially remediable. However, given that the Registrant had not provided any evidence of reflection, insight or remediation, the panel concluded that there was a likelihood of repetition with the potential risk of significant harm to service users.

19. The panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in respect of both personal and public components.

20. With regard to sanction, the panel decided to impose a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months, which should give the Registrant sufficient time for reflection and remediation.

21. The panel provided guidance to the Registrant as to what might be expected of him by a panel reviewing the Suspension Order, including:

• his attendance at the hearing;
• his reflections on the panel’s findings;
• any appropriate CPD or learning undertaken;
• how the Registrant had improved his knowledge and skills;
• practical work experience in any health-related fields including any voluntary placements; and
• testimonials and references.

Today’s hearing

22. On behalf of the HCPC Ms Sampson submitted that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel should conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of his lack of competence. She invited the Panel to impose a further Suspension Order for a period of 12 months upon the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

23. The Panel was not provided with any information or submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel, however, had seen a copy of file note of the HCPC dated 21 October 2024, stating that the Registrant had submitted a voluntary deregistration request.

The Panel’s decision

24. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

25. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of his lack of competence as determined by the panel at the substantive hearing.

26. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 [Admin] where it was stated that in practical terms there is a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

27. The Panel found that the Registrant had failed to take any steps to discharge this burden by addressing the fitness to practise concerns identified at the substantive hearing or any information concerning his working life or personal circumstances.

28. In these circumstances, the Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had addressed any of the concerns relating to his fitness to practise. It followed that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden referred to above. The Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant is currently safe to practise without restriction. In the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, there remained a significant likelihood of repetition and a risk of significant harm to service users. The Panel therefore found that his fitness to practise remains impaired in respect of the personal component.

29. The Panel also considered that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be seriously undermined if the Panel were not to find the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired. Accordingly, the Panel also found the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired in respect of the public component.

30. With regard to sanction, the Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

31. The Panel considered the need to protect the public, in particular service users, and gave appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.

32. The Panel considered that the concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise were too serious to take no further action or for the imposition of a Caution Order.

33. The Panel considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. Given, however, the Registrant’s failure to engage with the HCPC during the entire period since the substantive hearing, and the absence of any information about his circumstances, the Panel could not be confident that:

• the Registrant would comply with any conditions imposed; or
• he would not pose a risk of harm to service users, if he were permitted to practise subject to conditions; or
• he is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised; or
• he would take any effective measures within a reasonable time, or at all, to mitigate the risk posed to service users by his lack of competence.

34. The Panel decided to impose a further period of suspension to provide the Registrant with a further opportunity to address the findings of the substantive panel and demonstrate a willingness and commitment to remediate his practice.

35. A future reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by the following:

• the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing;

• his reflections on the substantive panel’s findings;

• any appropriate CPD or learning undertaken;

• how he has improved his knowledge and skills;

• practical work experience in any health-related fields including any voluntary placements; and

• testimonials and references.

36. The Registrant should be in no doubt that if he fails to use this further opportunity to remediate his practice, he may be subject to a Striking Off Order at the next review.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Mubarak Muhammad Mutawakkil for a period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The order imposed today will apply from 14 November 2025 and will expire on 14 November 2026.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 14 November 2026.

History of Hearings for Mr Mubarak Muhammad Mutawakkil