Maria Haq

Preliminary Matters 

Amendment 

1.          Ms Khaile, for the HCPC, applied to amend the allegation, submitting that it better particularises the fraudulent entry more clearly by including the date of the Registrant’s application. Ms Khaile submitted that the addition of the second particular to the allegation provides the Panel with a lesser alternative of incorrect entry. This will ensure that if the Panel find that the Registrant was not dishonest when making her application, it can still consider whether the information she provided in her application was accurate.

2.          Ms Khaile submitted that the amendments do not materially change the particulars of the allegations and do not increase the seriousness or gravamen of the allegations. Ms Khaile advised that the HCPC informed the Registrant of its intention to amend the allegations on 4 March 2026. It was outlined that the Registrant could provide a response in respect of the application to amend the allegations and, to date, the HCPC has not received any response.

3.          Ms Khaile submitted that the amendments can be made without any unfairness or injustice to the Registrant, who has been notified in advance of, and can properly respond to, the amended charges which now contain more specific details and properly reflect the evidence. This is consistent with the approach outlined in Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319, where it was accepted that even late amendments of allegations could be justified after the evidence had been heard, provided any unfairness was considered.

4.          Ms Khaile submitted that the proposed amendments serve to clarify the concerns against the Registrant and ensure that the totality of the allegation is adequately captured. She explained it had not been possible to amend the allegation before now.

5.          The Notice of Allegation dated 21 May 2024 sets out the allegation:

“1. Your entry onto the HCPC register as a Radiographer was fraudulently procured in that: - On your HCPC application you ticked “yes” to English being your first/day to day language when this was not factually accurate.”

6.          The HCPC proposed the following amended allegations:

“Your entry onto the HCPC register as a Radiographer RA098063 was:

1.   Fraudulently procured, in that when applying to be registered on 29 October 2023, you knowingly made a false declaration that English is your first language; or

2.   Incorrectly made, in that when applying to be registered on 29 October 2023, you incorrectly declared that English is your first language.”

7.          The Registrant explained her position and indicated that she understood and did not object. 

8.          The Panel accepted legal advice as to fairness and avoiding prejudice to the Registrant as a result of any amendment. The Panel was satisfied that it was fair to allow the proposed amendment which did not increase the seriousness or the nature of the allegation. It also noted that the Registrant did not object and that she had been given notice of this proposed amendment. In the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair to allow the amendment as proposed.

Background

9.          On Monday 13 May 2024, a referral was made to the HCPC regarding the Registrant, an HCPC registered Radiographer. The referral noted that the Registrant had applied twice to the HCPC, initially advising that her first language was not English, and then upon being requested to complete English proficiency tests, making a second application selecting her first language as English. This second application was accepted. 

10.       Upon internal HCPC review, it was confirmed that the Registrant had applied twice to the register, the first time not selecting English as her first language, and then the second time selecting it. The HCPC verified that the applications were made by the same person.

The Evidence 

11.       The HCPC called HM as a witness, an Operations Manager within the HCPC Registrations Department. In her witness statement she explained the registration process and the significance of the English language declaration and the English Language Testing System (IELTS). She adopted her witness statement in which she stated as follows:

“On 8 January 2023, the HCPC sent a further email to the registrant, requesting that she provide an eligible language test certificate. The registrant responded on 17 January 2023, providing an embedded attachment of an Ecctis Language Certificate...This certificate did not provide individualised scores as required by the HCPC...The HCPC therefore requested individual scores for reading, writing, listening and speaking. The individual scores were not provided…

On 12 August 2023, the registrant submitted results from three separate IELTS…. The tests are dated 25 February 2023, 11 May 2023 and 22 July 2023 respectively. The registrant’s scores did not meet the HCPC’s requirements for individual and overall scores in any of the three tests. The registrant did not score higher than an overall band score of 6.0 in any of the tests and each test had three of the four individual scores below the requisite 6.5. This meant that the registrant did not have the requisite English language proficiency to be admitted to the register. Further, the Registrant’s first language was recorded as Urdu on the first two forms, and Hindi on the third. Within the email the registrant reattached the Ecctis English Language Proficiency Certificate…

On 06 October 2023, the Registrant emailed the HCPC declaring that English is her first language…No further communication from the Registrant regarding this application is recorded and the Registrant was not admitted onto the register via this application…

On 29 October 2023, a second online application was received from the Registrant. The application number was AA856375 and as it was submitted online, there is not a hard copy of this application however, an electronic copy of the application and supporting documentation is produced… 

Within the Registrant’s second application, to the question “Is English your first language?” the Registrant declared “Yes”. As applicants who declare that English is their first langauge [SIC] are exempt from evidencing their proficiency, the Registrant was not asked to provide another test. On 05 April 2024, the application was processed and the Registrant was accepted onto the Register.

On Monday 13 May 2024, an anonymous referral was made to the HCPC regarding the Registrant… This referral alleged that the Registrant had applied twice to the HCPC, first selecting her “mother tongue” as Hindi and then, after not obtaining sufficient marks on an “IELTS” test, applied for a second time and selected English as her “mother tongue” which the referrer describes as a “false detail”. 

Following receipt of this referral, the HCPC undertook an initial internal investigation. It was confirmed during this investigation that the Registrant had applied twice to the register, once not selecting English as her first language and once doing so. The HCPC verified that both applications were made by the Registrant. This was done by reviewing the documents submitted in both applications, and determining that the qualification documents were the same, and related to the same person, the Registrant… 

The Registrrant’s [sic] second application contained no evidence to suggest that English had in fact become the Registrant’s first language, or her main language used on a day-to-day basis, since the completion of the IELTS test in July 2023. The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC investigation process.

The Registrant’s score of English proficiency as demonstrated by the July 2023 IELTs test is not sufficient to meet the HCPC requirements. The score of English proficiency needed under IELTS test is 7.0, without no elements [SIC] below 6.5.” 

12.       HM was asked by the Registrant whether she knew that other Indian applicants to the NHS in fact declared that English was their first language. The Registrant said that she was told to do so by other Indian applicants that she knew.  HM replied referring to the HCPC guidance on English language proficiency at the time, and the need for applicant’s to take a proficiency test if English was not their declared first language. She said that the requirement to take a proficiency test applied regardless of the applicant’s nationality. 

13.       HM explained that if the Registrant declared that English was their first language they would not, at that time, have required to provide any further evidence of English language proficiency. She said that this requirement was not determined by country and it was set out in the guidance on the HCPC website. 

The Registrant’s Evidence

14.       The Panel heard evidence from the Registrant. She told the Panel that in 2022 she made an application stating English was not her first language and was told she needed to take a proficiency test. She did those tests but did not make the required band 7, only band 6. She then got an interview and she was offered a radiographer role in London. She said she was then unsure what to do as she required HCPC registration to accept that role. She was advised by former student colleagues of hers, now working in the NHS, that she should make another application and state in the application that English was her first language so she would get HCPC registration without having to take the English language proficiency test. 

15.       The Registrant said her mother tongue was Hindi and Urdu, but she had said it was English in the 2023 HCPC form, as she was advised to by her Indian colleagues working in the NHS. She said she then got her HCPC number but a family member had complained to the HCPC. She regretted her mistake and she apologised. She said she would never “listen to people in future”. She said she would correct her mistakes which she would never repeat. 

16.       Ms Khaile cross-examined the Registrant who confirmed her first languages were Hindi and Urdu, which she speaks on a day-to-day basis. She said all her studies and her Degree were in English and she often spoke English in her professional role with colleagues, but not with most patients.

17.       The Registrant said that she knew English was not her first language when she completed the HCPC forms in October 2023. She said she had not checked the HCPC guidance but the page on the HCPC form had not told her otherwise. She said the computerised form had not prompted her to disclose anything further. She said that she did not want to be fraudulent. She said that all of her documents were genuine and “everyone else did it”. She said she did not intend to give any false information and said that she had wanted to accept the employment position she had been offered in London. 

18.       In response to email enquiries by the HCPC about her applications, the Registrant said that she did not tell the HCPC that she had received advice from former student colleagues to say English was her first language on the HCPC form. She confirmed that she had stated that English was her first language in her email to the HCPC dated 6 October 2023, despite the HCPC advising her that education in English was not sufficient to claim English was her first language.

The HCPC Submissions 

19.       Ms Khaile submitted that the burden of proof was on the HCPC on the balance of probabilities. She provided oral and written submissions in the following terms:

“The Law

“Article 22 (1) (b) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (“the Order”) states:

This article applies where any allegation is made against a registrant to the effect that an entry in the register relating to him has been fraudulently procured or incorrectly made.”

Article 26 (1) of the Order states:

The Investigating Committee shall investigate any allegation which is referred to it in accordance with article 22 or 24.

Article 26 (7) of the Order states:

In the case of an allegation of a kind mentioned in article 22(1)(b), if the Investigating Committee is satisfied that an entry in the register has been fraudulently procured or incorrectly made, it may make an order that the Registrar remove or amend the entry and shall notify the person concerned of his right of appeal under article 38.”

The provisions above allow for two alternatives. Firstly, the Panel can find that a fraudulent entry on the register was procured. Secondly, in the alternative, that entry on the register was incorrectly made.

An order requiring the Registrar to remove an entry in the register cannot take effect until the expiry of the appeal period, which is 28 days after service of the notice of decision (if no appeal is made) or when any appeal made is finally disposed of (Article 26(10) of the Order).

The Investigating Committee has power to make an interim order under Article 31 of the Order to cover the appeal period (Article 26(11) of the Order).

Fraudulent entry

An entry is fraudulently procured if any of the information submitted as part of the application was obtained or created by fraud or submitted with the deliberate intention to mislead the HCPC.

This may happen in circumstances including, for example:

a.   An applicant deliberately fails to disclose information in their application which they know they are required to disclose to the HCPC.

b.   An applicant deliberately provides inaccurate information in their application for registration.

c.    Falsified documents are submitted as part of a person’s application.

Incorrect entry

An entry is incorrect if it was based on inaccurate information provided without dishonesty or any intention to deceive. An entry is also incorrect if the HCPC made a mistake during the application process.

When considering whether an incorrect entry allegation is proved, it does not matter whether the person who is the subject of the entry on the register was at fault. The Panel is only concerned with whether the entry was incorrectly made, regardless of whose error it was.

Dishonesty

The Panel is invited to consider the practice note on making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind. The question of what a person's state of mind was is a question of fact.

Panels must decide questions about a person's state of mind on the usual civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities).

The state of a person’s mind is not something that can be proved by direct observation. A person's state of mind can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence.

When making decisions involving alleged dishonesty, Panels need to determine whether the Registrant has acted as an honest person would have acted in the circumstances….

Submissions

The HCPC’s case is that the Registrant derived an obvious benefit when applying to join the HCPC register by falsely declaring that English was [her] first language when it was in fact Hindi.

The key tenets of the HCPC’s case is that the false declaration that English language was the Registrant’s first language can only have been provided by the Registrant, and in making the false declaration, the Registrant knowingly misled the HCPC in order to derive the benefit of circumventing the testing of their ability of English language and thereafter being able to secure both registration and employment.

In respect of dishonesty, the ‘fraud’ in this case includes a component of dishonesty and is objectively considered based on what would be held to be dishonest in the minds of decent and honest people. The HCPC submit that the Registrant’s actions in this case were a deliberate fraudulent attempt to bypass the registration requirements which exist for reasons of public safety. The Registrant has been deliberately deceitful at the point of making their application.

Conclusion

In the event the Investigating Committee is satisfied that the entry in the register was either fraudulently procured or incorrectly made, it may make an order under Article 26(7) of the Order that the Registrar remove or amend the entry and shall notify the Registrant of their right of appeal under article 38 of the same order.”

20.       Ms Khaile submitted that the evidence from the Registrant was that she knowingly misled the HCPC in her October 2023 application about English being her first language to derive the benefit of HCPC registration to deliberately and fraudulently bypass the English language proficiency requirements. She submitted that it was clear from the evidence that in her first application the Registrant disclosed that her first language was not English. In her second application, she stated that English was her first language despite that not being the case. The Registrant accepted she had not considered the HCPC guidance. The Registrant knew English was not her first language. 

The Registrant’s Submissions 

21.       The Registrant submitted that she realised what she had done and she regretted that and apologised. She said she would not repeat this and asked how she would be harmful if she were to practise. She said she did not know the consequences at the time. She said she wanted to serve but would never be dishonest and wanted the chance to correct her mistake. Her qualifications were genuine. 

Decision on Facts

22.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who reminded it of the burden and standard of proof. He referred to the guidance on dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and the HCPC Practice Note on a Registrant’s state of mind. He provided a good character direction in respect of the Registrant and reminded the Panel of its powers under the Health Professions Order 2001, Article 26. 

23.       The Panel considered all the live evidence as well as the documentary evidence before it. 

24.       The Registrant made an application for registration in September 2022 and sat the IELTS test three times between 10 March 2023 and 22 July 2023. On each occasion that she took the test she declared her first language to be Hindi or Urdu. Despite sitting the test three times she failed to meet the required pass mark of 7.0. She later stated in an email to the HCPC on 6 October 2023 that English “is my first language”. 

25.       On 29 October 2023 the Registrant made a second application to the HCPC for registration declaring that English was her first language. 

26.       In her live evidence the Registrant stated that Hindi and Urdu were her first language, not English. She acknowledged that her day-to-day language is not English. Her education was in English, but she accepted that she was aware from the email from the HCPC dated 29 September 2022 that this was not sufficient to claim that English was her first language. 

27.       The Registrant stated in her evidence that she had declared English to be her first language in the 29 October 2023 HCPC application when she knew that it was not true, and she did so to obtain HCPC registration in order that she could accept a job offer in London. She said that many of her previous student colleagues working in the NHS had done so and they had advised her to make that declaration. 

28.       The Panel concluded that the Registrant knew when she completed the HCPC declaration in the October 2023 HCPC application, that English was not her first language, and that such a declaration was not true. 

29.       With the guidance in Ivey in mind, the Panel concluded that allegation 1 was proved. The Registrant has been dishonest in her declaration about the English language and, in doing so, she has fraudulently procured HCPC registration as a Radiographer. Her evidence is clear that she knew that declaration was not true at the time, and objectively considered, the Panel found that was dishonest. 

30.       Given the gravity of this finding, which strikes at the heart of the core, fundamental professional standards, the Panel decided that it was appropriate to direct the Registrar to remove the name of the Registrant from the Register. The Panel decided that removal was required in order to protect the public, the reputation of the profession, the integrity of the Register, and to uphold and declare proper professional standards. 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Maria Haq from the Register.

Interim Order Application 

1.          In light of its findings, the Panel next considered an application by Ms Khaile for an Interim Suspension Order before the Removal Order becomes operative at the end of the 28-day appeal period. 

2.          The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders. He reminded the Panel that an Interim Order must be necessary to protect the public, or be otherwise in the public interest. The Panel must act proportionately and balance the interests of the Registrant with the need to protect the public. It can also be granted in the Registrant’s own interests.

3.          The Panel was mindful of its earlier findings and concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and was in the wider public interest. The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with its earlier findings and with the Removal Order granted to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order was not meantime necessary. 

4.          Accordingly, the Panel decided that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on both public protection and wider public interest grounds. It decided that it was appropriate for that Interim Order to be imposed for a period of 18 months to cover the 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; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Maria Haq