Mr Muhammad S G Choudhary

Preliminary matters

Service

1. The Panel had sight of notice of the hearing under Rule 6(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”). This was sent to the Registrant by post on 7 August 2025 and again by post and email on 28 August 2025. The notices included the date and time of the hearing. They confirmed that the hearing would take place virtually and invited the Registrant to participate, providing details of how to join the virtual hearing.

2. The HCPC Certificate of Registration confirmed the Registrant’s email address registered with the HCPC to which the notice letter was sent.

3. The Panel was satisfied that proper service of notice of the hearing in compliance with the requirements of the Rules.

Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant

4. Mr Corrie, on behalf the HCPC, referred to an email dated 29 July 2025, from Katrina Gostelow, Prison Offender Manager at HMP Garth. This pre-dated both notices of hearing but appeared to be in response to an earlier communication regarding the hearing date. It referred to the hearing date of 20 October 2025. The email stated as follows:

“Good morning

I am contacting you as the Prison Offender Manager /Probation Officer for Mr Choudary who is currently located at HMP

Mr Choudary has received a letter from you dated 17/07/2025 regarding a Final Conduct and Competence Hearing relating to his previous employment/professional registration which is due to be held 20/10/2025.

Mr Choudhary has asked that I contact you to advise he has attended a
previous hearing in relation to this matter. As he is currently a serving prisoner with a serious conviction, he acknowledges that it is unlikely to be in the public interest to continue in this role. Hence, he reports that he is happy to step back from his role and for his name to be removed from the register.

Mr Choudary does not wish to participate in the hearing listed for 20/10/25.”

5. Mr Corrie submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend or be represented at this hearing. There was no indication of any reason why the Panel should adjourn the hearing. Mr Corrie submitted that, given the gravity of the allegation and the important public interest in the resolution of the matter, the Panel should proceed with the hearing today in the Registrant’s absence.

Panel decision

6. The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

7. The Panel referred to Rule 11 of the Rules which provides that where a registrant is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the Panel may proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of hearing under Rule 6(1) on the Registrant. Having found that good service of notice of the hearing had been made, the Panel considered whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

8. The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on proceeding in absence (August 2025) and referred to relevant guidance from the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. The Panel was careful to remember that its discretion under Rule 11 is not unfettered and must be exercised with the utmost caution and with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind.

9. The Panel noted the correspondence from the Prisoner Offender Manager at HMP Garth stated to be sent on the Registrant’s behalf. The Panel was satisfied this email, although not sent directly by the Registrant, could be taken as indicating the Registrant’s position. The email referred to the date of the hearing and indicated that the Registrant did not wish to attend.

10. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to participate in person or to be represented at this hearing. He had not sought an adjournment for any reason. He had indicated, via the Prison Offender Manager, that he did not wish to participate in the hearing. The Panel was satisfied no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. This was a conviction case and the public interest required that this serious allegation should proceed and be resolved as expeditiously as possible.

Application to amend the allegation

11. Mr Corrie applied to make two minor amendments to the allegation. In respect of particular 1(a), the amendment was to change “of” in the phrase “knowing of having reasonable cause” to “or”.

12. The second application was to amend the word “riffles” in particular 1(c) to “rifles”.

13. The Panel took legal advice. It was satisfied that no prejudice would be caused to the Registrant by these minor amendments. The Panel concluded it was fair and appropriate to allow the amendments to be made in order to ensure that the allegation was accurate.

Background

14. The HCPC obtained a certificate of conviction dated 20 December 2024 from the Central Criminal Court which confirmed that on 11 January 2024, the Registrant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, namely one count under Section 15(3) and two counts under Section 17, as set out in the allegation (above).

15. The Registrant was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court by HHJ Mark Lucraft KC, Recorder of London, on 15 October 2024. The sentence imposed was (in summary):

- 4 years imprisonment in respect of Count 1, 7 years imprisonment for Count 2 and 5 years for Count 3, all to be served concurrently, all to be served in custody;
- An extended licence period of 12 months;
- Forfeiture and destruction of the 4 rifle scopes and a telephone handset;
- To be the subject of a Terrorism Notification for 15 years.

16. The HCPC obtained a copy of the sentencing remarks of HHJ Lucraft KC and a copy of the indictment from the Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court which set out the particulars of the offences.

The HCPC’s submissions

17. Mr Corrie reminded the Panel that by virtue of Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules the certified copy of the certificate of conviction was admissible as proof of the conviction and the facts on which it was based. He submitted that the Panel should therefore find the facts proved. He referred to the authority in the case of Achina v GPhC [2021] EWHC 415 (Admin), where Mr Justice Lane stated that the wording of the rule encompassed not only the bare facts set out in the certificate of conviction but also the broader factual matrix set out in the sentencing remarks of the Judge.

18. The HCPC’s skeleton argument summarised the facts leading to the conviction from the sentencing remarks of HHJ Lucraft KC, as follows:

a. The Registrant, a former British soldier and NHS radiographer, pleaded guilty to three terrorism-related offences: fundraising and arranging for funds and equipment to support terrorism, particularly aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan between May 2017 and May 2019.

b. The Registrant contacted the Taliban via WhatsApp, expressed ideological support, and sent money described as donations for “Mujahideen” and orphans. Further, the Registrant sent 50,000 Pakistani Rupees (approx. £140) and expressed readiness to provide financial and physical assistance.

c. The Registrant purchased 12 thermal imaging rifle scopes worth around £31,500 from a UK supplier and tried to export them illegally to Taliban contacts in Pakistan, disguising the items as “cameras.”

d. Eight rifle scopes were exported; four were seized. The Registrant falsified export documents and end-user certificates to conceal the true purpose.

e. The evidence showed that payment came from Taliban contacts and that the Registrant knew the scopes were to aid armed conflict.

f. The Registrant’s communications revealed ideological commitment to the Taliban cause, believing he was contributing to a “righteous” struggle.

g. Expert evidence described the Taliban’s use of night vision and thermal equipment as enhancing their capacity for deadly attacks.

h. An email address within the Registrant’s contacts was one used for fundraising campaigns for the Taliban’s military operations. A video on the Registrant’s phone was a Jihadi training propaganda video from a proscribed group, the Haqqani network glorifying western casualties and Jihadi military training and activity.

i. In police interviews, the Registrant admitted lying about the nature and value of goods, knowingly exporting without a licence, and falsifying paperwork. He accepted that the scopes were destined for Taliban fighters but claimed his motive was to “balance power” and stop the war.

19. Mr Corrie submitted that the Panel could find the facts of the allegation proved based on the Certificate of Conviction from the Central Criminal Court, also taking account of the sentencing remarks.

Decision on Facts

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that the burden of proof in HCPC proceedings is on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.

21. The Panel’s attention was drawn to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules which provides that: “where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based”.

22. The Panel had sight of the certificate of conviction from the Central Criminal Court dated 20 December 2024 confirming that the Registrant was convicted on 11 January 2024 and was sentenced on 15 October 2024. In accordance with Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules, the signed certificate of conviction constitutes proof of the conviction. It is not for the Panel to seek to go behind the conviction. The Panel took into account the case of Achina v GPhC which had been brought to its attention.

23. The Panel was satisfied that the facts alleged in paragraph 1(a) to (c) of the allegation were proved.

HCPC submissions on ground and impairment

24. Mr Corrie adopted his skeleton argument and made additional oral submissions. He submitted that the statutory ground of conviction under the Health Professions Order 2001 (“the Order”) would be made out if the Panel found the fact of the conviction proved.

25. In respect of impairment the HCPC’s submission was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in relation to both the personal and public components.

26. Mr Corrie referred to the relevant legal principles in relation to current impairment and referred the Panel to the HCPTS practice notes “Finding Impairment of Fitness to Practise” and Conviction and Caution Allegations.

27. Mr Corrie stated that the Registrant has been convicted of serious terrorism offences. He submitted that the circumstances of the offences revealed ideologically motivated actions taken with the knowledge that these were active steps to support the Taliban. He submitted that these are behavioural issues which, whilst not impossible, are difficult to remediate.

28. Referring to the sentencing remarks of HHJ Mark Lucraft KC, Mr Corrie noted that at paragraph 28, reference was made to a pre-sentence report dated 15 July 2024 which stated that the Registrant posed ‘a low risk of proven general reoffending within two years’. However, on Terrorism Act related offending the risk was assessed as ‘the likelihood is that serious harmful offending will be high’. Mr Corrie noted that the Judge did not consider that the Registrant met the statutory test of dangerousness and appeared to accept that the Registrant is a different man to the one who committed the offences in 2017.

29. Mr Corrie noted that submissions were made to the court on the Registrant’s behalf to the effect he accepted the error of his ways, regretted what he had done and understood that whatever wrongs might have been carried out by others his conduct was not justified. He said that it was a matter for the Panel to decide what weight should be attached to the mitigation referred to in the criminal proceedings. However, Mr Corrie’s submission was that, given the nature of the offences and the absence of any detailed representations from the Registrant for the purposes of the HCPC case addressing matters such as remediation and insight into the impact of his actions for the profession, the Panel should conclude that the Registrant poses a risk of harm to the public.

30. In relation to the wider public interest, Mr Corrie submitted that public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made where the Registrant has been convicted of criminal offences relating to acts of terrorism which he said are amongst the most serious in the criminal justice system. He noted that the Registrant is still serving a period of imprisonment; that upon release he will be subject to a 12-month licence period; and that he is subject to Terrorism Notification for 15 years which will apply on his release from custody. Mr Corrie submitted that the gravity and nature of the offending is such that public confidence in the profession and the regulator would clearly be undermined if no finding of impairment was made.

31. Mr Corrie stated in respect of the four factors referred to in the Report of the Fifth Shipman Inquiry as indicating impairment, his submission was that although the conduct did not take place in the course of the Registrant’s professional practice, his actions had put the wider public at risk. They had brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely to ensure that the Registrant’s conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him and his profession, as set out at paragraph 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

Panel Decision on ground and impairment

32. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC.

33. The Panel noted that the allegation in this case is based on the Registrant’s criminal conviction which it has found proved at the facts stage. The Panel concluded that the statutory ground of conviction under Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 was therefore established.

34. In respect of impairment, the Panel’s task is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned.

35. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by his criminal conviction. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to relevant case law authorities. The Panel kept in mind that the question of impairment is a matter for its own judgement. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment.

36. The Panel had regard to the conduct of the Registrant, the nature, circumstances and gravity of the findings and the critically important public policy issues, in particular the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

37. The Panel considered the submissions of Mr Corrie and all the information presented, which included the Certificate of Conviction, the Crown Court Indictment and the transcript of the sentencing remarks of HHJ Lucraft KC.

38. In considering its decision, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conviction involved him in engaging in acts of terrorism which amounted to offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and which were of a very serious nature. The Registrant is currently serving a significant custodial sentence and will be remain subject to further orders of the Court after his release, indicating the seriousness with which it was regarded by the sentencing Judge in the criminal proceedings.

39. The Registrant had not provided any evidence or submissions for the purposes of this hearing. The only information before the Panel regarding his position was the email of 27 July 2025 from the Prison Offender Manager which stated: “As he [the Registrant] is currently a serving prisoner with a serious conviction, he acknowledges that it is unlikely to be in the public interest to continue in this role. Hence, he reports that he is happy to step back from his role and for his name to be removed from the register.”

40. In respect of the personal element of impairment, the Panel concluded that serious criminal conduct involving terrorism offences is likely to involve an element of ideological motivation and to be attitudinal in nature. As such, it is difficult to remediate.

41. The Panel had been presented with no remediation evidence for this hearing. The Panel noted the references by HHJ Lucraft KC to the Registrant’s recognition of the seriousness of his actions and expression of remorse during the criminal proceedings. However, the Panel concluded this mitigation carried little weight in relation to the matters of direct concern to this Panel when considering the Registrant’s fitness to practise as an HCPC Registrant. The Panel had no evidence before it to indicate that the Registrant had shown insight into, or reflected on, the impact of his actions upon the profession of Radiography, on public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator, or on the wider public interest. The Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct is highly unlikely to be repeated and concluded the Registrant continues to present a risk of harm to the public. The Panel concluded that his fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the personal component of impairment.

42. In relation to the public component of current impairment, the Panel bore in mind the very serious nature of the Registrant’s criminal convictions. The Panel considered that an HCPC registrant who holds such a conviction has failed to uphold the standards of conduct set by the HCPC and has undoubtedly undermined public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator.

43. In relation to risk, the Panel considered the four factors which indicate impairment of fitness to practise, as set out by Dame Janet Smith in the Report of the Fifth Shipman Inquiry and identified in the legal advice it received. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant’s criminal conviction did not relate to his clinical practice as a Radiographer. However, the Panel agreed with Mr Corrie’s submission that his actions had put the wider public at risk of harm and had brought the Radiography profession into disrepute. The Panel was satisfied that he had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession in that he had breached Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

44. Taking into account the guidance from the case of CHRE v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927, the Panel had no doubt that wider public confidence would be undermined if the HCPC as the regulator did not take action and make a finding of current impairment in respect of a registrant who has a criminal conviction for engaging in acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000 for which he is currently serving a significant prison sentence. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public component of impairment.

45. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components of current impairment.

The HCPC’s submissions on Sanction

46. Mr Corrie said that the HCPC’s submission was that striking off was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case. He referred the Panel to the principles relevant to its consideration of sanctions in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He reminded the Panel that a sanction is not designed to punish the Registrant but is to protect the public. He referred to the requirement for the Panel to take a proportionate approach to the consideration of sanction.

47. Mr Corrie drew the attention of the Panel to sections in the Sanctions Policy and the section relating to criminal conviction matters. He reminded the Panel of relevant case law, including the guidance from the case of CRHP V General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87, to the effect that (in summary) as a general principle, where a registrant is still subject to the sentence of a criminal court then they should not normally be allowed to return to unrestricted practice.

48. Mr Corrie’s submission was that the available sanctions less than striking off would not be sufficient to address the significant gravity of the criminal offences in this case. He addressed the factors set out in respect of each sanction in the Sanctions Policy. In relation to suspension, Mr Corrie reminded the Panel that the Registrant is at an early stage of his custodial criminal sentence of 7 years, with further orders which will remain in place after he is released from prison.

49. Mr Corrie submitted that the factors indicating that suspension may be appropriate are not present in this case, reminding the Panel that at the impairment stage it was not able to conclude that the conduct was highly unlikely to be repeated and that the Panel had concluded that there was no evidence before it of insight or efforts to resolve matters.

50. In relation to striking off, Mr Corrie acknowledged this is a sanction of last resort but his submission was that in the circumstances of this case, which involve serious criminal offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, no lesser order would be appropriate to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC.

Panel Decision on Sanction

51. The Panel took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and those of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and the practice note, Conviction and Caution Allegations.

52. In considering sanction, the Panel was reminded that a sanction is not intended to be punitive. However, a sanction may be necessary in the public interest and may have a punitive effect. Where, as in this case, the allegation concerned a criminal conviction, the purpose was not to punish the Registrant twice for the criminal offence but was to protect the public and address the public interest.

53. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the guidance from the cases of Fleischmann (above) and PSA for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council (Patel) [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin) in which the Court stated that the guidance was not a fixed rule but must bend to the overarching requirement to impose a sanction which was just, proportionate and protected the public. The guidance from the Fleischmann case was reflected at paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy.

54. The Panel bore in mind throughout that any sanction it may decide to impose must be proportionate, that is, it must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

55. The Panel was mindful throughout that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. A panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

56. The Registrant has been convicted of very serious offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. Whilst the sentence imposed in the criminal proceedings was not determinative of the appropriate regulatory sanction, the Panel was mindful that a significant sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment and further orders which will remain in place after he is released from custody, namely a year’s licence and a Terrorism Notification order for fifteen years.

57. The Panel referred to the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy concerning conviction cases at paragraphs 80-84. The Panel was of the view that the offences involving engagement in terrorism related activities were very serious matters which would have a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.

58. The Panel considered that the following aggravating factors were present:

- The sentencing remarks referred to prolonged conduct involving deliberate planning and pre-meditation;
- No evidence showing insight of efforts to remediate had been provided for the HCPC proceedings;
- Risk of serious harm to members of the public.

59. The Panel considered that the following mitigating factors were present:

- The Registrant had no fitness to practise history;
- There was a plea of guilty in the criminal proceedings;
- In the criminal proceedings submissions were made to the Court on the Registrant’s behalf to the effect he accepted the error of his ways, regretted what he had done and understood that whatever wrongs might have been carried out by others his conduct was not justified. However, the Panel had not been provided with further detail of these, or any submissions, on behalf of the Registrant in the HCPC proceedings.

60. The Panel took these factors into account when considering sanction. The Panel concluded it could give limited weight to the mitigating factors, most of which were only raised before the criminal court. It was mindful that mitigation is of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings where protection of the public is the overarching consideration. The Panel concluded that the gravity of the aggravating factors in this case outweighed the mitigating factors.

61. The Panel considered whether it was necessary to impose a sanction. It considered the sanctions in ascending level of severity in order to ensure its approach was proportionate.

No Action

62. The Panel concluded that in this case, taking no action would not be appropriate. The Panel determined that due to the gravity of its findings in this case a sanction was necessary in the public interest.

Caution Order

63. The Panel first considered the factors in the Sanctions Policy in relation to a Caution Order. It concluded that the issues in this case were not minor in nature. This was not an isolated matter. The Panel had no evidence insight from the Registrant. The Panel had concluded that there remained a risk of repetition and that the Registrant continues to pose a risk of harm to the public. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order was not sufficient or appropriate.

Conditions of Practice

64. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Registrant is currently serving a custodial sentence. Even were he not in prison, the Panel concluded that it would not be possible to formulate conditions which would address the criminal misconduct.

65. Further, the Sanctions Policy states that conditions of practice will not usually be appropriate in the case of criminal convictions for serious offences (paragraph 108). Most significantly, the Panel’s view was that conditions of practice would not reflect the gravity of the findings in this case, nor would such an order address the concerns regarding the wider public interest.

66. Referring to paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Policy, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation or that it was unlikely to be repeated. These factors indicated that a Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate in this case.

Suspension

67. The Panel carefully considered whether an order of Suspension for the period of up to one year would be sufficient to address the public protection and public interest concerns in this case.

68. The Panel referred to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The concerns represent serious breaches of the HCPC Standards. The Registrant has shown only limited insight. The Panel did not consider the concerns were unlikely to be repeated. There has not been satisfactory evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy his criminal conduct.

69. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would not provide adequate protection to the public or the public interest, nor would it maintain public confidence in the Radiography profession.

Striking Off Order

70. The Panel considered whether a striking off order was required. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences involving terrorism activities. The Registrant has not demonstrated insight or remediation to this Panel. Were the Registrant not currently in prison he would remain a continuing risk to the public.

71. The Registrant is currently serving a 7 year custodial sentence following the imposition of his criminal sentence in October 2024. After that period he will remain subject to an extended licence period of 12 months and subject to a Terrorism Notification order for 15 years.

72. The Panel took into account paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy which states that where a registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally a panel should not allow a registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed. The Panel’s attention had also been drawn to the cases of Fleischmann and Patel which reflect that guidance.

73. The Panel was mindful of the guidance from the cases of PSA for Health and Social Care v NMC (Jalloh) [2023] EWHC 3331 (Admin) and Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, to the effect that the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. The essential issue remains maintaining public confidence in the professions. Matters of personal mitigation (which do not concern the seriousness of the underlying conduct or its impact upon public confidence) are of less weight.

74. The Panel was mindful that striking off is a sanction of last resort which 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 in the regulatory process (paragraph 131). The Panel was satisfied that this was such a case. Any lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order would not address the issues of wider public interest and public confidence in the Radiography profession and in the regulatory process.

75. Taking account of all of these matters, the Panel concluded that the criminal conviction found proved in respect of the Registrant was fundamentally incompatible with registration as a health professional on the HCPC Register and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Striking Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Muhammad S G Choudhary from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Mr Corrie made an application for an interim order. He noted that the Registrant had been put on notice of this application in the notices of hearing dated 7 August 2025 and 28 August 2025.

2. Mr Corrie’s application was for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period, on the ground that such an order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that an interim order in these circumstances is discretionary. The Panel must consider whether an interim order is necessary, applying the test set out in Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and must act proportionately. This means balancing the public interest with the interests of the Registrant, and imposing the lowest order which will adequately protect the public.

4. The Panel was referred to the guidance in respect of immediate interim orders in the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note, Interim Orders.

5. The Panel considered the issue of proportionality and balanced the interests of the Registrant with the public interest. The Panel had determined to impose a substantive Striking Off Order and, given the gravity of the issue and the sanction imposed, the Panel considered it would be inconsistent not to impose an interim order.

6. The Panel first considered whether interim conditions of practice would be appropriate but concluded that conditions which would address the Panel’s concerns could not be formulated, for the same reasons as set out in its determination on the substantive sanction, above.

7. Accordingly, the Panel determined that an interim suspension order was necessary in order to protect the public and in the wider public interest.

8. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate duration of the interim suspension order was 18 months, as the interim order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal with the 28-day appeal period.

Decision

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, or, if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, upon the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Muhammad S G Choudhary