Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
1
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 06/11/2017 15/11/2017 Medical Practitioners name: Dr Mohammed YASIN
GMC reference number: 7038920
Primary medical qualification: MB ChB 2009 University of Birmingham
Type of case Outcome on impairment New - Misconduct Impaired
Summary of outcome
Erasure Immediate order imposed
Tribunal:
Legally Qualified Chair Mr Richard Tutt
Lay Tribunal Member: Mr Andrew Gell
Medical Tribunal Member: Dr Jill Edwards
Tribunal Clerk: Ms Rosanna Sheerin
Attendance and Representation:
Medical Practitioner: Present and represented
Medical Practitioners Representative: Mr Nicholas Peacock, Counsel, instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur
GMC Representative: Ms Sharon Beattie, Counsel
Attendance of Press / Public The hearing was all heard in public.
Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
2
Determination on Facts - 13/11/2017 Background
1. Dr Yasin qualified in 2009 and prior to the events which are the subject of the
hearing he worked in the United Kingdom in various hospitals including Walsall,
Wolverhampton and Stafford. At the material time, Dr Yasin was practising as an A&E
locum at the New Cross Hospital (part of the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust).
2. The Allegation that has led to Dr Yasins hearing can be summarised as follows. In
2016, on more than one occasion, Dr Yasin hugged and/or touched two female
colleagues whilst working at the New Cross Hospital and his actions were sexually
motivated.
The Allegation and the Doctors Response
3. The Allegation made against Dr Yasin is as follows:
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. Between 1 January and 31 March 2016 you approached Miss A, a Health Care
Assistant colleague, and you: Admitted and found proved
a. put your arm around Miss A; To be determined
b. had an erect penis. To be determined
2. On 2 April 2016 you approached Miss A in the Clinical Decisions Unit (CDU)
of the Accident and Emergency Unit and you: Admitted and found proved
a. stood behind Miss A and: To be determined
i. rubbed Miss As shoulders; To be determined
ii. put your arm around Miss As shoulders; Admitted and found
proved
iii. rubbed Miss As arm; To be determined
iv. on one or more occasions moved your hands down Miss As
body from her shoulders to her waist and back again; To be
determined
Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
3
b. on one or more occasions asked Miss A for a hug; Admitted and
found proved for one occasion
c. hugged Miss A during which you: Admitted and found proved
i. pulled Miss A very close to you; Admitted and found proved
ii. pressed your erect penis against Miss As lower abdomen; To
be determined
d. after Miss A had moved away from you:
i. moved to stand by Miss A again; To be determined
ii. hugged Miss A from behind during which you: To be
determined
1. wrapped your arms around Miss As shoulders; To be
determined
2. pressed your erect penis against Miss As back; To be
determined
e. followed Miss A down the corridor of the CDU and you: Admitted and
found proved
i. asked Miss A whether she was on shift the following night;
Admitted and found proved
ii. stood in front of Miss A with an erect penis. To be determined
3. On 2 April 2016 you approached Miss B, a Health Care Assistant colleague,
and you: Admitted and found proved
a. said can I have a hug? or words to that effect; Admitted and found
proved
b. put your arms around Miss B; Admitted and found proved
c. hugged Miss B during which you: Admitted and found proved
i. moved your arms from Miss Bs back down towards her hips; To
be determined
Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
4
ii. pulled Miss B towards you for a tighter hug; Admitted and
found proved
iii. rubbed yourself against Miss Bs legs; To be determined
iv. thrust your legs against Miss Bs legs; To be determined
v. pushed your erect penis on to Miss Bs leg; To be determined
vi. moved your erect penis back and forth on Miss Bs leg; To be
determined
d. after finishing hugging Miss B, you left your arm around her and
moved your hand down to Miss Bs hips; To be determined
e. said to Miss B I want another hug before the end of my shift, or
words to that effect. To be determined
4. Your actions as set out at paragraphs 1-3 above were sexually motivated. To
be determined
The Admitted Facts
4. At the outset of these proceedings, through his counsel, Mr Peacock, Dr Yasin
made admissions to some paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the Allegation, as set
out above, in accordance with Rule 17(2)(d) of the General Medical Council (GMC)
(Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, as amended (the Rules). In accordance with Rule
17(2)(e) of the Rules, the Tribunal announced these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs
of the Allegation as admitted and found proved.
The Facts to be Determined
5. In light of Dr Yasins response to the Allegation made against him, the Tribunal is
required to determine whether or not the disputed allegations are found proved.
Factual Witness Evidence
6. The Tribunal received evidence on behalf of the GMC from the following
witnesses:
Miss B, Health Care Assistant, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, in person;
Ms C , Junior Staff Nurse, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, in person;
Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
5
Miss A, Student Nurse, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, in person;
Ms D, Staff Nurse, previously at Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, in person;
Ms F, Senior Sister, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, in person;
7. The Tribunal also received evidence on behalf of the GMC in the form of
witness statements from the following witness who was not called to give oral
evidence:
Mr G, Head of Clinical Illustration, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.
8. Dr Yasin provided his own witness statement, dated 27 October 2017, and
also gave oral evidence at the hearing.
Documentary Evidence
9. The Tribunal had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the
parties. This evidence included, but was not limited to:
E-mail from Miss B to Ms F dated 3 April 2016;
Notes of Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Investigation interview with Miss B,
undated;
E-mail from Ms C to Ms F dated 3 April 2016;
Notes of Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Investigation interview with Ms C
dated 30 June 2016;
Statement from Miss A, dated 6 April 2016, provided to Ms F;
Notes of Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Investigation interview with Miss A
dated 10 June 2016;
Screenshots of Miss As WhatsApp messages dated 2 April 2016;
Notes of Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Investigation interview with Ms D
dated 27 June 2016;
E-mail from Ms F dated 3 April 2016;
Notes of Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Investigation interview with
Dr Yasin dated 13 June 2016;
Photographs of alleged incident locations.
The Tribunals Approach
10. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Tribunal has borne in mind the burden of proof rests on the GMC and it is for the GMC to prove the Allegations. Dr Yasin does not need to prove anything at all. The fact that Dr Yasin gave evidence does not mean he took any burden of proof upon himself. The standard of
Record of Determinations
Medical Practitioners Tribunal
MPT: Dr YASIN
6
proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, i.e. whether it is more likely than not the events occurred. 11. The Tribunal has had regard to the case of Freeman and Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim 1863 as to whether the evidence relating to one of the two complainants might be cross admissible in relation to the other, and if so, to what uses it might legitimately be put. The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that if there may have been collusion between the complainants, the issue of cross admissibility would not arise. However, if collusion were not found and the Tribunal found the material facts proved in relation to one of the complainants, the Tribunal would have to consider if this proved a propensity on the part of Dr Yasin to behave in a certain way. If such a propensity were found, this might be taken into account when deciding whether Dr Yasin behaved in a similar way towards the second complainant. Any such propensity evidence would only be part of the evidence in relation to the second complaint. 12. The Tribunal has also had regard to the evidence that Dr Yasin is a man of previous good character. This is relevant in two respects, first, when considering his credibility, secondly, when considering the likelihood of Dr Yasin acting in the manner alleged. The Tribunals Analysis of the Evidence and Findings
Factual Findings 13. The Tribunal considers that it is necessary to make certain general findings of fact in this case due to the nature of the allegations. Collu
