PUBLIC RECORD - mpts-uk.org · • Mr E, XXX partial witness to the events, in person. 12. The Tribunal also received evidence on behalf of the GMC in the form of witness statements

Record of Determinations –

Medical Practitioners Tribunal

MPT: Dr SATTAR 1

PUBLIC RECORD

Dates: 02/12/2019 - 11/12/2019

Medical Practitioner’s name: Dr Naweed SATTAR

GMC reference number: 3657780

Primary medical qualification: MB ChB 1992 University of Manchester

Type of case Outcome on impairment New - Misconduct Not Impaired

Summary of outcome

No warning

Tribunal:

Legally Qualified Chair Mrs Jayne Wheat

Lay Tribunal Member: Mr Martyn Green

Medical Tribunal Member: Dr Ann Wolton

Tribunal Clerk: Laurence Millea

Attendance and Representation:

Medical Practitioner: Present and represented

Medical Practitioner’s Representative: Mr Marios Lambis, Counsel, instructed by BLM LLP

GMC Representative: Mr Carlo Breen, Counsel

Attendance of Press / Public In accordance with Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 the hearing was held in private.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 2

Overarching Objective Throughout the decision making process the tribunal has borne in mind the statutory overarching objective as set out in s1 Medical Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public, to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession. Determination on Facts - 09/12/2019 Background 1. Dr Sattar qualified in 1992 with an MB ChB from the University of Manchester. At the time of the events Dr Sattar was practising as a Consultant in Stroke and Rehabilitative Medicine for City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, where he has been employed since January 2014. Up until January 2018 Dr Sattar was also the Trust lead for Trauma & Clinical Governance for the Care of the Elderly. 2. The allegations that have led to Dr Sattar’s hearing can be summarised as resulting from two incidents occurring XXX on 24 and 27 August 2017. Following these incidents, the details and accounts of which are included within the documentation before the Tribunal, Dr Sattar was charged with three counts of assault, contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. No evidence was offered by the CPS and no convictions resulted. A Restraining Order was made. It is alleged that Dr Sattar failed to notify the GMC without delay that he had been charged with these criminal offences. 3. The initial concerns were raised with the GMC on 11 January 2018 when Dr Sattar self-reported, contacting the GMC by telephone to advise that he would soon be attending court in relation to XXX, emailing details of the court summons and charge later that day. On 08 February 2018 a GMC Assistant Registrar decided that the information regarding the four month delay in Dr Sattar’s self-reporting of these matters amounted to an allegation of impairment and a GMC investigation commenced. The Outcome of Applications Made during the Facts Stage 4. The Tribunal granted the joint application on behalf of both parties, made pursuant to Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise Rules) 2004 as amended (‘the Rules’), that the entirety of the proceedings should be heard in private. The Tribunal’s full decision on the application is included at Annex A. 5. The Tribunal granted the application made by Mr Breen, Counsel on behalf of the GMC, pursuant to Rule 34(1), to admit a transcript (prepared jointly by both parties) of an audio file which recorded a partial conversation between Dr Sattar and Ms A relating to allegation 1(b), taking place immediately after this alleged event.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 3

This was a covert recording made by Ms A on her mobile telephone. He explained that facilities were available for the Tribunal to hear the recording, but that both parties agreed the transcript was the fairest way of presenting the recorded material in the circumstances. Mr Lambis, Counsel on behalf of Dr Sattar, urged caution with regard to the timing of this evidence being revealed at such a late stage because it was a recording taken without Dr Sattar’s knowledge and there was no time to verify its integrity. However, Mr Lambis did not object to this evidence being put before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having read the transcript, took into account the agreed nature of the application and determined to admit the evidence under Rule 34(1) of the Rules. It was relevant to the fact finding stage and was not unduly prejudicial to either party. The Tribunal determined to fully evaluate the nature and circumstances surrounding the recording and attach appropriate weight to it in due course. It therefore determined it was fair to admit the recording. 6. The Tribunal granted the application made by Mr Lambis, on behalf of Dr Sattar, under Rule 34(1) of the Rules to hear evidence from character witnesses at the facts stage. This application was not opposed by Mr Breen, on behalf of the GMC. The Tribunal considered it appropriate for these defence witnesses to be called in a case of this nature, where the outstanding allegation relates to Dr Sattar’s conduct and the Tribunal are tasked with weighing his evidence against that of the main GMC witness. The Tribunal was reminded by the Legally Qualified Chair that their evidence was relevant only to Dr Sattar’s credibility. 7. The Tribunal granted the application made by Mr Lambis pursuant to Rule 34(13) of the Rules to hear witness evidence via telephone link. This application related to four of the character witnesses and was not opposed by Mr Breen, on behalf of the GMC. The Tribunal determined that given the witnesses had been scheduled to attend in person but had been unable to do so due to delays in proceedings outside of their control, or that of Dr Sattar, this would be appropriate. This was particularly the case in light of the fact that they were providing character testimonials and not direct witness evidence relating to the Allegation. The Allegation and the Doctor’s Response 8. The Allegation made against Dr Sattar is as follows: That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended): 1. On 24 August 2017 you:

a. were verbally abusive to XXX, Ms A, including stating that she was:

i. ‘a fucking bitch’ or words to that effect; Admitted and found proved



MPT: Dr SATTAR 4

ii. ‘a stupid idiot’ or words to that effect; Admitted and found proved

b. held a knife to Ms A’s neck.

To be determined

2. On 27 August 2017 you:

a. pushed Ms B; Admitted and found proved

b. punched Mr C in the face one or more times.

Admitted and found proved

3. On 30 August 2017 you were charged with:

a. on 27 August 2017 assaulted Ms B by beating her contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Admitted and found proved

b. on 27 August 2017 assaulted Mr C by beating him contrary to Section

39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Admitted and found proved

c. on 24 August 2017 assaulted Ms A contrary to Section 39 of the

Criminal Justice Act 1988. Admitted and found proved

4. You failed to notify the GMC without delay that you had been charged with

the criminal offences detailed in paragraph 3. Admitted and found proved

And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct. To be determined The Admitted Facts 9. At the outset of these proceedings, through his Counsel, Mr Lambis, Dr Sattar made admissions to some paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the Allegation, as set out above, in accordance with Rule 17(2)(d) of the Rules. In accordance with Rule 17(2)(e) of the Rules, the Tribunal announce d these paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the Allegation as admitted and found proved. The Facts to be Determined



MPT: Dr SATTAR 5

10. In light of Dr Sattar’s response to the Allegation made against him, the Tribunal is required to determine whether Dr Sattar held a knife to Ms A’s neck on 24 August 2017. In relation to the events alleged against him on the 27th August 2017, there is a significant factual dispute regarding the context in which Dr Sattar punched Mr C twice. The Tribunal is required to determine whether or not the GMC have proved the facts as they presented them in this regard. Factual Witness Evidence 11. The Tribunal received evidence on behalf of the GMC from the following witnesses:

• Ms A, in person, and; • Mr E, XXX partial witness to the events, in person.

12. The Tribunal also received evidence on behalf of the GMC in the form of witness statements from the following witnesses who were not called to give oral evidence:

• Mr F, Investigation Officer for the GMC, dated 01 August 2019.

13. Dr Sattar provided his own witness statement, dated 28 October 2019, and also gave oral evidence at the hearing. In addition, the Tribunal received evidence from the following witnesses on Dr Sattar’s behalf:

• Ms D, XXX peripheral witness to the events, in person. • Ms G, Medical Secretary at Sunderland Royal Hospital, via telephone link; • Dr H, Consultant in Neuro-Rehabilitation, Walkergate Park Hospital, via

telephone link; • Ms I, Care Home Manager, Norton Care Ltd, via telephone link, and; • Ms J, Stroke Specialist Nurse Practitioner, Sunderland Royal Hospital, via

telephone link. 14. The Tribunal also received evidence on behalf of Dr Sattar in the form of witness statements from the following witnesses who were not called to give oral evidence:

• Dr K, former colleague and professional acquaintance of Dr Sattar, dated 27 October 2019.

Documentary Evidence 15. The Tribunal had regard to the documentary evidence provided by the parties. This evidence included, but was not limited to:



MPT: Dr SATTAR 6

• Police reports of the events; • Police statement of Mr E, dated 30 August 2017; • Charge sheet, dated 30 August 2017, Apology document and Restraining

Order, dated 24 January 2018; • Self-referral email from Dr Sattar to the GMC, dated 11 January 2018; • Transcripts of police interviews with Dr Sattar, dated 27 and 29 August 2017; • Statements of Police Officers L, M, N and O, dated 27 to 30 August 2017;

• Photographs of Dr Sattar’s neck, chest, back and arms; • Transcript of an audio file of a partial conversation between Dr Sattar and Ms

A relating to allegation 1(b), recorded just after the time of this alleged event. • WhatsApp screenshots of text conversations between Ms D and Dr Sattar,

dated 25 August 2017; • A large number of written testimonials on behalf of Dr Sattar.

The Tribunal’s Approach 16. In reaching its decision on facts, the Tribunal has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the GMC and it is for the GMC to prove the Allegation. Dr Sattar does not need to prove anything. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, i.e. whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred. 17. The Tribunal took into account the good character direction it received from the LQC in its evaluation of Dr Sattar’s credibility. The Tribunal’s Analysis of the Evidence and Findings 18. The Tribunal has considered each outstanding paragraph of the Allegation separately and has evaluated the evidence in order to make its findings on the facts. Paragraph 1(b) 19. In reaching its determination in relation to paragraph 1(b) of the allegations, the Tribunal considered the accounts of the event provided by Dr Sattar and Ms A, the documentary evidence before it including the police reports, interviews and statements and witness statements of Ms A and Dr Sattar, and the transcript of the audio recording taken by Ms A. 20. The Tribunal also considered the background and surrounding events and accounts of the incident, particularly the evidence given by Ms D. It first examined the circumstances just prior to the alleged incident. 21. Ms A’s accounts detail how an argument had started between herself and XXX, Dr Sattar, after they had accompanied XXX Ms D to XXX. She maintained Dr



MPT: Dr SATTAR 7

Sattar was disappointed and upset by XXX. This had, in her view upset XXX Ms D, who was crying and had gone to XXX. She said that she had followed Dr Sattar XXX it was accepted that he was holding a butter knife (rounded and blunt) XXX. She said that during a heated argument, Dr Sattar came within a couple of centimetres of her face and held the butter knife beneath her chin, so close that she couldn’t see it. Ms A confirmed in her oral evidence that the knife did not touch her skin. Dr Sattar’s account was that XXX Ms D was already crying XXX, due to being upset by XXX. He maintained he was therefore upset on her behalf, rather than because of XXX. He described leaving XXX and was holding a butter knife, when an argument ensued. 22. In her oral evidence, Ms A maintained the reason Ms D had been upset was because of Dr Sattar’s reaction to XXX, with Dr Sattar’s response being angry and disproportionate. She stated that Ms D had become upset as a result of this, and she had to go and comfort her XXX, to give her a hug before XXX to discuss this with Dr Sattar. She stated that this was the cause of the argument XXX and that Dr Sattar’s claim that Ms D was already upset when XXX could not be correct XXX. 23. In her oral evidence, which was not challenged, Ms D confirmed Dr Sattar’s version of events, in that she had been disappointed by XXX and had become upset, crying XXX and remaining upset XXX by Dr Sattar and Ms A. She confirmed that Dr Sattar had not acted as if he was disappointed in her or that he had upset her, but that she was disappointed for herself, as he had stated. She told the Tribunal that the only person to have put pressure on her was herself. In relation to the events XXX, Ms D stated that Ms A had come up to comfort her, but that this was after the argument with Dr Sattar, and that she was sitting on a chair when Ms A came in and gave her a hug. 24. The Tribunal considered Ms D to have been truthful, credible witness who gave a very straightforward account of events and whose answers were spontaneous and uncontrived. It accepted her evidence and took the conflicting version of Ms A into account when determining Ms A’s credibility. It found Dr Sattar to be a more credible witness as a result and found the circumstances before the incident alleged in 1(b) to have been as Dr Sattar described them. 25. The Tribunal then went on to consider events XXX. Dr Sattar told the Tribunal that the knife remained in his hand during the course of this argument, although he was not consciously aware of it at the time. Dr Sattar stated that whilst he gesticulated during this argument he at no point brandished or wielded the knife threateningly, and it did not come close to Ms A’s person. His account was that they were not standing particularly close to each other or within each other’s personal space, but at a distance of a few feet away. 26. During his oral evidence on this incident, Dr Sattar was naturally gesticulating in such a fashion, and then consciously demonstrated his actions when asked to do



MPT: Dr SATTAR 8

so. The fact that Dr Sattar was already expressing this body language whilst giving his evidence of what had happened during the argument gave weight to his account of the events and his actions. The Tribunal did not believe these motions were contrived or minimised and the way he gesticulated was entirely plausible. 27. In considering the evidence of Ms A, the Tribunal was of the opinion that it was less credible. The recording Ms A secretly made of the conversation following this incident was forwarded to the police during their investigation but was not mentioned to GMC investigators until this Tribunal was convened. Given Ms A provided this to the police she must have been aware of its relevance in these matters, and the Tribunal considered it unusual that she would have withheld this information from the GMC until such a late stage. 28. When asked, she told the Tribunal that she had taken this recording with the intention of sharing it only with Dr Sattar in order to demonstrate to him how unreasonable and aggressive he was being, at a later date once he had calmed down. She insisted that she did not wish for Dr Sattar to get in trouble, either with the police or the GMC, and had not intended to share this recording. Ms A could not provide a complete explanation as to why this recording was then shared with both the police and latterly the GMC, or why she had chosen to disclose it only once the Tribunal had convened to hear the case. 29. Of particular relevance in the Tribunal’s determination on this matter was the agreed fact that Dr Sattar had indeed been alone XXX and holding a butter knife when Ms A came in and instigated the conversation from which the argument ensued. In addition, it is clear from the accounts, and the transcript which captures the argument after the alleged incident, that Dr Sattar again moved away by leaving XXX, seeking to remove himself from what he described as a “toxic situation”. It was at this point that Ms A began recording on her mobile phone and then followed him to continue the argument. 30. The Tribunal did not accept that these were the actions of a person who had just been threatened, with a knife held up to their neck, and in Ms A’s oral evidence to the Tribunal she explicitly stated that “at no point did I think my life was in threat”. In addition to this, and as identified by Mr Lambis in his submissions, during this part of her oral evidence Ms A also stated “He never lifted…”, before cutting short the sentence. 31. The Tribunal considered the content of the transcript. What it found consistent was Dr Sattar’s desire to bring the argument to a close and be left alone. The Tribunal noted that Ms A, in the knowledge that she was recording the conversation, twice described the incident with the knife, and Dr Sattar dismissed her quite forcefully stating:



MPT: Dr SATTAR 9

“Oh get lost..knife..alright stop being so fucking melodramatic alright, get lost….. … Stop being melodramatic”

32. The Tribunal considered that his response in the recording (where Ms A was referring to the knife incident and was aware the conversation was being recorded but Dr Sattar was not) was consistent with the accounts he gave in his police interviews. 33. During his oral evidence, under cross-examination from Mr Breen, Dr Sattar did become noticeably agitated and challenged the wording of questions put to him. The Tribunal did not find that his demeanour undermined the evidence he gave. Dr Sattar’s account remained consistent. The Tribunal attributed no weight to Dr Sattar’s demeanour under cross-examination, accepting that giving evidence in these circumstances affects people very individually. The Tribunal instead took account of the strong testimonial evidence provided, particularly from the four character witnesses who provided oral evidence to the Tribunal. 34. The testimonials and accounts given included colleagues, relatives, friends and acquaintances, some who have known Dr Sattar for many years. They provided the Tribunal with insight into how he behaved in professional, personal and family life situations. The Tribunal considered they portrayed a supportive, non-confrontational individual who was amicable and displayed self-control in challenging situations. 35. Throughout the course of proceedings, Dr Sattar acknowledged that he was disappointed in his behaviour, that upon reflection he would react differently under those circumstances and was candid about how XXX and the events of those days have impacted him. Throughout her evidence, Ms A maintained that she had acted as a reasonable party throughout, was never quick to anger or use bad language, and had merely been seeking to obtain an explanation from Dr Sattar for his behaviour. The Tribunal didn’t find this credible. It considered the evidence of Ms D, in particular her description of a subsequent XXX argument where XXX [Ms A] was swearing, XXX. 36. The accounts of both Ms D and Mr E describe that following the argument between Ms A and Dr Sattar, and prior to the events on 27 August 2017, the behaviour and interactions between the two seemed relatively normal, and that Ms A did not mention the incident with a knife to them. 37. Ms A stated to the Tribunal that the following day she had asked Ms D to text Dr Sattar as, as a result of this event, she was unable to communicate directly with him. Ms D told the Tribunal that it was fairly common for her to text Dr Sattar on behalf of XXX [Ms A], that there was nothing unusual about this and nothing appeared untoward at the time either in this request or Ms A’s behaviour.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 10

38. In light of all the evidence put before it, and on weighing the accounts of the parties against one another, the Tribunal determined that the GMC had not proven the allegation that Dr Sattar had held a knife to Ms A’s neck. The Tribunal found that Dr Sattar did not hold a knife to Ms A’s neck, as per the wording of the charge, or brandish a knife at Ms A in an intimidating or threatening way, XXX when an argument ensued and he had gesticulated with it in his hand, in the manner he demonstrated to the Tribunal in the course of this heated discussion. 39. The tribunal therefore found allegation 1(b) not proved. Paragraph 2(a) 40. Whilst this allegation was admitted at the outset of proceedings by Mr Lambis, on behalf of Dr Sattar, it was the submission of Mr Breen, on behalf of the GMC, that the details and background of this event were of relevance to the Tribunal’s considerations of the overall assessment of Dr Sattar’s character and credibility as a witness in these matters. 41. Mr Breen submitted that Dr Sattar demonstrably lied to police in his initial account of this incident, stating during the initial police interview on 27 August 2017 that: “So I did not push XXX [Ms B].” …

“At no point did I push her back or even touch her…” … “I have not touched not a single finger towards XXX [Ms B]”

42. While in his witness statement for these proceedings, dated 28 October 2019, some 2 years later, Dr Sattar states:

“I have no actual recollection of pushing XXX [Ms B], but it is possible that I pushed her gently and asked her to move her [sic] out of the way, to stop her from slapping my arms and so that I could get to the front door. I would not have pushed her hard, as she was elderly and I always treated her with respect.”

43. It was the submission of Mr Breen that in his contemporaneous reports to the police Dr Sattar denied that he made any physical contact with XXX [Ms B], and given that his apology within the criminal proceedings and account to the GMC more recently accept that he did, he therefore lied to the police. This was further



MPT: Dr SATTAR 11

demonstrated, he submitted, by the fact that Dr Sattar only made reference to Ms B slapping his arms in his later evidence to the GMC, demonstrating an inconsistent and misleading version of events. 44. The Tribunal noted that in her written statement Ms A stated that: “She XXX [Ms B] held his arm to stop him from leaving.” …

“Naweed pushed XXX [Ms B] away. It was not a hard push, it was more like a shove.”

45. During the course of her oral evidence Ms A confirmed that XXX [Ms B] had made the first physical contact with Dr Sattar and was seeking to stop him leaving XXX. She said that Dr Sattar did not suggest Ms B should sit down in case she had an angina attack, whereas in his evidence, Mr E, who the Tribunal considered to have been an entirely honest and credible witness, stated that he had heard XXX [Dr Sattar] telling Ms B to sit down in case she had an angina attack. 46. The Tribunal placed weight on all parties agreeing that Ms B had placed her hands upon Dr Sattar in an attempt to prevent him from leaving XXX, having followed him into the hallway, and that he had consistently expressed the desire and intent to get away from the situation by leaving XXX. 47. The Tribunal accepted the account of Dr Sattar, that whilst initially recalling events Dr Sattar had denied making any contact with or pushing Ms B, but upon reflection he acknowledged that he may have done so in the heat of the moment and without force, to free himself so that he could leave. 48. The Tribunal was of the opinion that this did not reflect intentional inconsistencies or deception in Dr Sattar’s account, but rather that he seemed willing to reflect on events and accept responsibility for his actions, noting that he genuinely seemed to want to resolve the situation, as demonstrated by his apology during the Magistrate Court proceedings. 49. Rather than demonstrating that he intentionally lied to police the Tribunal was of the view that this supported his reliability as a witness, whereby Dr Sattar has been able to accept, upon reflection, his actions. 50. In light of the evidence of Dr Sattar and Mr E on this matter, and of Ms A’s description of the push, the Tribunal accepted Dr Sattar’s account of this event. Dr Sattar was trying to leave a confrontational situation and was being prevented from so doing. His response was not an act of aggression but an instinctive reaction within this context.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 12

Paragraph 2(b) 51. Whilst this allegation was admitted at the outset of proceedings by Mr Lambis, on behalf of Dr Sattar, there was a clear factual dispute as to the context in which Dr Sattar punched Mr C, XXX. 52. The Tribunal considered the witness evidence before it in relation to this specific event, and the submissions of both parties. 53. In his submission on behalf of the GMC, Mr Breen argued that Dr Sattar has provided inconsistent descriptions of the interaction and had therefore been dishonest in his recounting of events to the police, the GMC and the Tribunal. Further he submitted that given that Dr Sattar is unable to clearly or accurately describe the positions he and Mr C were in, or the exact timing of the ‘headlock’ or restraint he was under at the time he punched XXX [Mr C], his account should not be considered reliable. He concluded that the Tribunal should accept the account of Ms A on this matter and find that this was an unprovoked act on the part of Dr Sattar. Alternatively, Mr Breen suggested that it was open to the Tribunal to find that having freed himself from the headlock, Dr Sattar could simply have pushed XXX [Mr C] away. 54. The Tribunal did not agree with Mr Breen’s submissions in this regard, considering that the descriptions of this event provided by Dr Sattar in his police and GMC witness statements do not contradict each other. Further, Dr Sattar’s description remained entirely consistent under extensive cross-examination. 55. In his police statement, dated 27 August 2017 Dr Sattar stated:

“So I pushed him away, try and push him away from the door but he gets me in a headlock and eventually I managed to free myself from the headlock and as I’m kind of unfreeing myself, I mean, he’s still grabbed hold of me and I give him a couple of punches to his face and that manages to free me from his hold.”

56. In his police statement, dated 29 August 2017 Dr Sattar stated:

“He gets me in a headlock and then obviously from that I managed to free myself and by that time he’s in the house, I’m standing where he was standing but he still had one hand on me, so I gave him a couple of punches to his face and that made him let go of the hand.”

57. And in his GMC witness statement, dated 28 October 2019 Dr Sattar stated:



MPT: Dr SATTAR 13

“I tried to push [Mr C] away from the door, and I think this was sort of gentle barging him with my shoulder, but he put me in a headlock. I tried to free myself but it was difficult. I managed to get out of the headlock but he had hold of my clothes with his right hand and was not letting go and so I punched him twice on the left side of his face. They were not heavy punches, and my aim was just to shock him into letting me go. He did let go for a couple of seconds…”

58. In her account, Ms A stated that Dr Sattar’s actions in punching XXX [Mr C] were completely out of the blue and unexpected. She said that following this incident his face was red where Dr Sattar had hit him. She told the Tribunal that at no point during the struggle that she said occurred after Dr Sattar punched XXX [Mr C] did she see him getting Dr Sattar into a headlock. 59. This account of the injuries sustained by Mr C was not corroborated by the completely independent evidence of the statement of [Police] Officer N: …

“As I spoke with Ms A, Ms B and Mr C I could see no visible injuries.” 60. The police statement of Officer O does, in the opinion of the Tribunal, corroborate Dr Sattar’s account of being physically restrained in a headlock. Officer O states:

“Once at the police station, I noted that Dr Sattar had red marks to both sides of his neck and onto his chest.”

61. The Tribunal considered that the photographs of Dr Sattar, although not particularly clear, do show marks or bruising and were consistent with his account and the evidence of the police officer. 62. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal Ms A described XXX [Mr C] standing between Dr Sattar and the front door, blocking his exit from the property. Her explanation for this was that he had passed Dr Sattar, who had gone into the cloakroom attached to the hallway to get a coat, but that XXX [Mr C]’s positioning and blocking of the door was incidental and not deliberate. 63. Mr E, in his evidence, confirmed that when he came downstairs Dr Sattar was not shouting or swearing, but was saying that he wanted to leave the house. XXX [Mr C] was on top of Dr Sattar, pinning him to the ground with one arm on top of him across his chest. Mr E explained Dr Sattar stopped struggling and asked to be allowed to leave but XXX [Mr C] would not let him go. The struggle then continued and Mr E had to pull XXX [Mr C] off XXX, Dr Sattar. The Tribunal found Mr E’s evidence to be very credible and straightforward on this matter.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 14

64. The Tribunal concluded, after considering all the evidence, that Dr Sattar’s account was genuine and he had struck Mr C in response to being physically gripped and restrained by him, in an attempt to prevent Dr Sattar from leaving his house and escaping the situation. 65. The Tribunal did not accept Ms A’s account of this incident, which was inconsistent with all the other evidence. Paragraphs 3 & 4 66. Mr Breen submitted that in his written testimonial on behalf of Dr Sattar, Dr P, Dr Sattar’s Clinical Director, states Dr Sattar spoke to him about a “potential XXX dispute and potential charge” in October 2017, with Dr Sattar having been charged on 30 August 2017. Mr Breen submitted that this demonstrated dishonesty as well as a delay and should be considered as evidence of his unreliable character. 67. The Tribunal took the view that the wording used by Dr P’s was his own, and not Dr Sattar’s, who could not be accountable for it, and in any event, Dr Sattar has admitted these allegations. The Tribunal did not, therefore, attribute any weight to this wording in assessing Dr Sattar’s character and reliability as a witness. The Tribunal’s Overall Determination on the Facts 68. The Tribunal has determined the facts as follows: That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended): 1. On 24 August 2017 you:

a. were verbally abusive to XXX, Ms A, including stating that she was:

i. ‘a fucking bitch’ or words to that effect; Admitted and found proved

ii. ‘a stupid idiot’ or words to that effect;


b. held a knife to Ms A’s neck. Determined and found not proved

2. On 27 August 2017 you:

a. pushed Ms B; Admitted and found proved



MPT: Dr SATTAR 15

b. punched Mr C in the face one or more times.


3. On 30 August 2017 you were charged with:

a. on 27 August 2017 assaulted Ms B by beating her contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Admitted and found proved

b. on 27 August 2017 assaulted Mr C by beating him contrary to Section

39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Admitted and found proved

c. on 24 August 2017 assaulted Ms A contrary to Section 39 of the

Criminal Justice Act 1988. Admitted and found proved

4. You failed to notify the GMC without delay that you had been charged with

the criminal offences detailed in paragraph 3. Admitted and found proved

And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct. To be determined Determination on Impairment - 10/12/2019 1. The Tribunal now has to decide in accordance with Rule 17(2)(l) of the Rules whether, on the basis of the facts which it has found proved as set out before, Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. The Evidence 2. The Tribunal has taken into account all the evidence received during the facts stage of the hearing, both oral and documentary. 3. In addition, the Tribunal received and read the written reflections from Dr Sattar. 4. The Tribunal received and read the following cases:

• Ken Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England [2006] EWHC 2533 (Admin) (‘the Livingstone case’)

• Remedy UK Ltd v GMC [2010] Med LR 330 (‘Remedy’)



MPT: Dr SATTAR 16

• The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] CSIH 29 (‘the Scottish case’)

Submissions 5. On behalf of the GMC, Mr Breen submitted that the position of the GMC is that Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct. 6. It was the primary submission of Mr Breen that the facts admitted and found proved in this case at paragraphs 1(a)i. and ii., 2(a) and 2(b) and 3-4 amount individually to misconduct. He further submitted that even if this was wrong, the Tribunal were entitled to look at the cumulative behaviour of Dr Sattar and find misconduct. His behaviour breached fundamental tenets of the profession, both by virtue of the behaviour leading to criminal charges, and his failure to report these to the GMC without delay. 7. Mr Breen submitted that the reputation of the profession would be undermined were a finding of current impairment not to be made in this case. He referred the Tribunal to relevant case law and the overarching objective. 8. Mr Breen submitted that Dr Sattar’s actions and behaviour have brought the profession into disrepute, and that regardless of the context, the pushing of Ms B and punching of Mr C were serious acts and would be considered deplorable by his fellow practitioners. 9. With regard to impairment, Mr Breen submitted that the public would expect a finding of impairment in light of the individual facts or when considered collectively. He submitted that the reality was, no matter what was said about the circumstances, that Dr Sattar cannot be excluded from the light of the regulator. To determine otherwise would not meet the overarching objective of maintaining public confidence and declaring and upholding standards. 10. On behalf of Dr Sattar, Mr Lambis submitted that the Tribunal should find that Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired. 11. Mr Lambis submitted that the GMC’s position on impairment was, at worst, seeking to go behind the Tribunal’s findings and at best does not reflect the findings on the facts made by this Tribunal. He directed the Tribunal to its facts determination, in particular paragraphs 35-38, 46 and 64. He submitted that the Tribunal had explicitly agreed with Dr Sattar’s position that he did not hold a knife to Ms A’s neck, or threaten her, and that his actions in relation to charge 2 were reactive and instigated by the physical actions of other parties. Therefore to find these actions as misconduct, let alone serious misconduct, would be to go against the findings of this Tribunal at the previous stage.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 17

12. Mr Lambis submitted that, as expressed in the case of GMC v Bawa-Garba [2018] EWHC 76 (Admin), public confidence must reflect the views of informed and reasonable members of the public. 13. In light of the facts found by this Tribunal, Mr Lambis submitted, the conduct at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the allegation did not amount to misconduct. 14. He submitted that the comments in the Livingstone case regarding the right to freedom of speech were relevant in that none of the words used by Dr Sattar XXX, and during a heated argument, would contravene any law. Dr Sattar had a heated argument with XXX [Ms A] XXX where bad language was used. Following this an incident occurred where Dr Sattar was being physically prevented from leaving XXX so as not to cause a scene when XXX [Ms B] was unwell and XXX. 15. It was Mr Lambis’s submission that the GMC’s approach to misconduct was fatally flawed in these circumstances, and that it was a ludicrous proposition to suggest that Dr Sattar should allow himself to be in a headlock and do nothing about it. 16. Mr Lambis submitted that Dr Sattar’s failure to report the charges brought against him to the GMC without delay is in a different category and could be considered misconduct as this was a breach of Good Medical Practice (2013 edition) (‘GMP’). However, given the circumstances and position Dr Sattar was in at this time it could not amount to a finding of current impairment. He submitted that the Tribunal could safely say this was conduct which would not be repeated. 17. Mr Lambis submitted that the relevant case law makes it clear that an isolated act by a practitioner does not necessarily require or lead to a finding of current impairment. The public trust and confidence in the profession can be upheld by the regulatory proceedings and process themselves, and in light of the specific circumstances of this case, this component of the overarching objective has been fulfilled. The Relevant Legal Principles 18. The Tribunal reminded itself that at this stage of proceedings, there is no burden or standard of proof and the decision of impairment is a matter for the Tribunal’s judgement alone. 19. In approaching the decision, the Tribunal was mindful of the two stage process to be adopted: first whether the facts as found proved amounted to misconduct which was serious and then whether, by virtue of that misconduct, the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired. 20. The Tribunal must determine whether Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is impaired today, taking into account his conduct at the time of the events and any relevant factors



MPT: Dr SATTAR 18

since then such as whether the matters are remediable, have been remedied and if there is any likelihood of repetition. 21. At the outset, the Tribunal considered the ‘Livingstone case’ in order to decide what relevance, if any, it might have to its considerations. 22. The Tribunal accepted and took into account the right of freedom of speech, namely that a person is entitled to say what he likes of another provided he does not act unlawfully. The question for the Tribunal was not whether a person was entitled to speak freely, but whether or not, in so doing, their words could constitute misconduct which was serious within the regulatory framework of this Tribunal. It determined to apply the case law relevant to that exercise of judgement and did not refer to ‘the Livingstone case’ any further. The Tribunal’s Determination on Impairment Misconduct 23. In considering its determination on whether Dr Sattar’s actions amount to misconduct, the Tribunal had regard to the case of Roylance v GMC (2000) 1 AC 311:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”

24. It had regard to the following paragraph of Good Medical Practice (2013 edition): 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in

you and the public’s trust in the profession. 25. Throughout its deliberations it bore in mind the limbs of the Overarching Objective, in particular to:

“Promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession

Promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for the members of the profession.”

26. The Tribunal acknowledged that misconduct can and often does take place outwith the Doctor’s professional practice.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 19

Paragraph 1(a)i.&ii. 27. In considering whether Dr Sattar’s words amounted to serious misconduct, it considered the context of them – they were used in a heated argument with XXX [Ms A] XXX. The Tribunal did not find proved that Dr Sattar held a knife to XXX [Ms A’s] throat on the same occasion as the words were used. In the absence of any findings in which these words were connected to threatening behaviour or violence, the Tribunal considered them in isolation. 28. Whilst the words used by Dr Sattar against XXX [Ms A] were undoubtedly unpleasant, the Tribunal did not consider that this behaviour would be considered deplorable by fellow members of the profession. Nor did it consider that in so using them, Dr Sattar had breached any of the standards of his profession. 29. The Tribunal therefore determined that Dr Sattar’s actions in relation to paragraphs 1(a)i. and ii. did not amount to misconduct. Paragraph 2(a) and (b) 30. In its determination on the facts, the Tribunal found the factual context of Dr Sattar’s admissions to this paragraph to be as he had maintained throughout. It referred back to its facts determination, particularly paragraphs 46, 50, 58, 59 and 64 which can be summarised as follows: Ms B, XXX, put her hands on Dr Sattar in attempt to try and prevent him from leaving, and Dr Sattar’s response in pushing her away was motivated by his attempts to leave and by the concern that she should sit down as he was concerned for her health at the relevant time. Dr Sattar’s actions in punching Mr C twice were not an unprovoked attack, but an attempt to free himself from the restraint he still found himself under after freeing himself from a headlock. Subsequently, Mr C managed to gain the upper hand again and was holding down Dr Sattar when Mr E came downstairs. XXX [Dr Sattar] had stopped struggling by then and Mr E had to pull XXX [Mr C] XXX [Dr Sattar]. There were no visible injuries to Mr C, as evidenced by the statement from a police officer. These facts indicated to the Tribunal that Dr Sattar’s response was not excessive in the circumstances. Dr Sattar was trying to escape this situation by leaving and his actions were considered in this context by the Tribunal. 31. In light of these very particular circumstances, the Tribunal did not find that Dr Sattar’s conduct was dishonourable or disgraceful. It did not consider that fellow professionals would find his actions in this context to have been deplorable. 32. The Tribunal therefore determined that Dr Sattar’s actions in relation to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) did not amount to misconduct.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 20

Paragraph’s 3 and 4 33. In considering whether Dr Sattar’s failure to report the charges against him (as outlined in paragraph 3) without delay amounts to misconduct, the Tribunal was mindful of the relevant GMP guidance in this regard. 34. Paragraph 75(b) of the guidance states: 75. You must tell us without delay if, anywhere in the world: …

b. you have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence 35. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the charges against Dr Sattar were eventually not proceeded with and that Dr Sattar had discussed the charges with his Clinical Director in October of 2017, it considered Dr Sattar’s actions to have breached both paragraphs 65 and 75 of GMP. 36. Doctors are required to be familiar with their obligations under GMP, and the charges brought against Dr Sattar, being three separate allegations of Common Assault were of a serious nature and had the potential to be harmful to the reputation of the profession. The Tribunal considered that it should have been very clear to Dr Sattar that he should inform his regulator, so they could be investigated and any action required by the regulator could be taken. In failing to report these charges without delay, Dr Sattar’s omission constituted a serious departure from the standards required of him. 37. The Tribunal therefore found that Dr Sattar’s actions in relation to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the allegation do amount to misconduct, which was serious. 38. The Tribunal, having found that these facts amounted to misconduct, went on to consider whether, as a result of that misconduct, Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. Impairment 39. The Tribunal first identified the nature and context of Dr Sattar’s misconduct in not notifying the GMC without delay that he had been charged with three offences of Common Assault. 40. Dr Sattar delayed notifying the GMC by some four months, in circumstances where, by any standards, but particularly for a doctor, the charges were serious. The potential consequences of not reporting that he had been charged were that his



MPT: Dr SATTAR 21

Regulator could not take prompt action to investigate or uphold the overarching objective. The requirements of GMP in this regard are clear. The Tribunal has already found that a failure to notify was a breach of Dr Sattar’s professional obligations. 41. It weighed this against the fact that Dr Sattar has always accepted full responsibility for his failure to notify the GMC and it took account of the circumstances that Dr Sattar found himself in when he was released from the police station. XXX. 42. It was important to note that Dr Sattar did inform his Clinical Director in October 2017, and again in January 2018, upon receiving notification of the Magistrates Court hearing date. He subsequently did inform the GMC of the situation on the 11 January 2018. 43. The Tribunal concluded that the doctor had, in the past, breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute as a result. 44. However, in exercising its judgement as to whether Dr Sattar is currently impaired, the Tribunal took into account the reflections contained within the undated document it was handed today. It considered that Dr Sattar had reflected fully upon the breach of the standards required of him. 45. The Tribunal determined that this was conduct that was entirely remediable and had been remedied by virtue of Dr Sattar’s acceptance of the breach and his current awareness of his professional obligation to notify the GMC without delay in the event of a similar situation occurring in future. 46. It considered it highly unlikely that there would ever be a repetition of this breach of the standards expected of him by GMP. The Tribunal considered his acceptance of his failure and his reflections upon it. It considered that Dr Sattar had shown insight into his conduct. Furthermore it took account of the persuasive testimonials as to his usual good character, and the “one off” nature of this misconduct, in the context of an otherwise lengthy and unblemished career. It concluded that he was not liable to breach this fundamental tenet in future, nor was he liable to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute by a repetition of this failure. 47. The Tribunal then considered whether this was a case which required a firm declaration of professional standards so as to promote public confidence. In all the circumstances the Tribunal has identified, it concluded it was not. The Tribunal was satisfied that public confidence in the profession would not be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. It considered that a well-informed, reasonable member of the public would conclude that professional



MPT: Dr SATTAR 22

standards and public confidence could be said to have been upheld by a rigorous regulatory process which resulted in a finding of misconduct. 48. The Tribunal has therefore determined that Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is not impaired. Determination on Warning - 11/12/2019 1. As the Tribunal determined that Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise was not impaired it considered whether in accordance with s35D(3) of the 1983 Act, a warning was required. Submissions 2. On behalf of the GMC, Mr Breen submitted that Dr Sattar should be issued with a warning in respect of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Allegation, referring the Tribunal to the relevant GMC Warnings Guidance (February 2018), (‘the Warnings Guidance’). 3. Mr Breen submitted that as the Tribunal stated in its impairment determination that Dr Sattar’s behaviour was a serious departure from the standards required of him. Because his actions in failing to do so amounted to misconduct which was serious, a warning was necessary. 4. Mr Breen asked the Tribunal to consider proportionality, and submitted that the test for issuing a warning at paragraph 16 of the Warnings Guidance had been met. He submitted that a warning should be issued to reflect the seriousness of Dr Sattar’s departure from GMP. 5. On behalf of Dr Sattar, Mr Lambis submitted that under the specific circumstances and background of the case the Tribunal should find that a warning is not necessary in this instance, referring the Tribunal to the relevant paragraphs of the Warnings Guidance. 6. Mr Lambis submitted that Dr Sattar has always accepted full responsibility for his failure to report the charges in a timely fashion, adding that he had reported them to his Clinical Director and self-reported to the GMC in January 2018. At no time did he seek to conceal or intentionally avoid reporting them. 7. In his submission, Mr Lambis did accept that Dr Sattar’s actions were a departure from GMP but reminded the Tribunal of the context and circumstances of the case. The impact and emotional toll the events and subsequent proceedings have taken on Dr Sattar and his family should be considered as factors in his delay reporting these charges to the GMC. Dr Sattar’s fitness to practise is not impaired, he has accepted full responsibility and demonstrated insight with no risk of repetition, and due to the nature



MPT: Dr SATTAR 23

of the facts found proved there would be no benefit to the public interest in issuing a warning. 8. Mr Lambis submitted that to issue a warning under these circumstances would be disproportionate and that a warning, issued to serve as a deterrent, is not required as the Tribunal has already determined that there is no risk of repetition of these events. The Tribunal’s Determination on Warning 9. It was the Tribunals intention that this determination is read in conjunction with its determination on impairment. 10. The Tribunal had regard to paragraphs 11, 16 and 20(a) of the Warnings Guidance.

11 Warnings allow the GMC and MPTS tribunals to indicate to a doctor that any given conduct, practice or behaviour represents a departure from the standards expected of members of the profession and should not be repeated. They are a formal response from the GMC and MPTS tribunals in the interests of maintaining good professional standards and public confidence in doctors. The recording of warnings allows the GMC to identify any repetition of the particular conduct, practice or behaviour and to take appropriate action in that event. Breach of a warning may be taken into account by a tribunal in relation to a future case against a doctor, or may itself comprise misconduct serious enough to lead to a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

16 A warning will be appropriate if there is evidence to suggest that the

practitioner’s behaviour or performance has fallen below the standard expected to a degree warranting a formal response by the GMC or by a MPTS tribunal. A warning will therefore be appropriate in the following circumstances:

- there has been a significant departure from Good medical practice, …

20 The decision makers should take account of the following factors to

determine whether it is appropriate to issue a warning.

a There has been a clear and specific breach of Good medical practice or our supplementary guidance.

…



MPT: Dr SATTAR 24

11. Whilst Dr Sattar’s actions were a clear breach of GMP, the Tribunal did not consider the departure to have been significant when the full context of his failure to report is taken into account. 12. The Tribunal also considered paragraph 13 of the Warnings Guidance:

13 Although warnings do not restrict a doctor’s practice, they should nonetheless be viewed as a serious response, appropriate for those concerns that fall just below the threshold for a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

13. The Tribunal determined that Dr Sattar’s actions did not fall just below the threshold for a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

14. The Tribunal went on to consider paragraph 14 of the Warnings Guidance:

14 Warnings should be viewed as a deterrent. They are intended to remind the doctor that their conduct or behaviour fell significantly below the standard expected and that a repetition is likely to result in a finding of impaired fitness to practise. Warnings may also have the effect of highlighting to the wider profession that certain conduct or behaviour is unacceptable.

15. The Tribunal did not consider that a warning was required to act as a deterrent. It had identified a lack of risk of repetition and that Dr Sattar has demonstrated insight and remediation through refamiliarising himself with GMP. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the events and proceedings on Dr Sattar and his family, and was satisfied that a warning was not required to remind the doctor that his conduct fell below the standard expected. Whilst the guidance states a warning may also have the effect of highlighting to the wider profession that certain conduct is unacceptable, this is not its intention. In the absence of a need to issue a warning as a deterrent, this paragraph is not engaged. 16. The Tribunal determined that all of the factors outlined in paragraph 33 of the Warnings Guidance below were engaged. Dr Sattar has shown full insight, the Tribunal considered the incident was isolated and there is no risk of repetition.

33 However, if the decision makers are satisfied that the doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired or that the realistic prospect test is not met, they can take account of a range of aggravating or mitigating factors to determine whether a warning is appropriate. These might include:

• the level of insight into the failings.

a A genuine expression of regret/apology.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 25

b Previous good history. c Whether the incident was isolated or whether there has been

any repetition. d Any indicators as to the likelihood of the concerns being

repeated. e Any rehabilitative/corrective steps taken. f Relevant and appropriate references and testimonials

17. The Tribunal had regard to paragraph 25 of the Warnings Guidance and the principle of proportionality:

25 In deciding whether to issue a warning the decision maker should apply the principle of proportionality, weighing the interests of the

public with those of the practitioner.† It is important to bear in mind, of

course, that warnings do not restrict the practitioner’s practice and should only be considered once the decision maker is satisfied that the doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired.

18. The Tribunal was of the view that given the nature of the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the allegation, the public interest in issuing a warning is greatly reduced. There is no risk to patient safety and the need to ensure Dr Sattar is aware of his failings and does not repeat them has already been achieved. Public confidence in the profession has been maintained by the regulatory process, resulting in a finding of misconduct. 19. Given the nature, context and specifics of Dr Sattar’s actions, and in light of Dr Sattar’s insight on the matter, the Tribunal was not of the opinion that his failings were sufficiently serious to require a formal response, referring to paragraph 19 of the Warnings Guidance:

19 Once the decision makers are satisfied that the doctor’s fitness to

practise is not impaired, they will need to consider whether the concerns raised are sufficiently serious to require a formal response from the GMC or MPTS tribunals, by way of a warning.

20. The Tribunal determined that a warning was not necessary under the circumstances. 21. That concludes this case. Confirmed Date 11 December 2019 Mrs Jayne Wheat, Chair



MPT: Dr SATTAR 26

ANNEX A – 03/12/2019

Application under Rule 41(2) for the hearing to be held in private 1. Mr Breen, Counsel, on behalf of the GMC, made an application under Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) (‘Fitness to Practise’) Rules 2004 (as amended)(‘the Rules’) for the hearing to be heard wholly in private. Submissions Submissions on behalf of the GMC 2. Mr Breen submitted that this is a joint application which is also supported by Mr Lambis, on behalf of Dr Sattar. 3. It was Mr Breen’s submission that in the specific circumstances of the case, the public interest in holding the hearing in public is outweighed by the privacy concerns and considerations. 4. Mr Breen went on to submit that the concerns regarding privacy relate to the anonymity and privacy of the witnesses called to give evidence and the nature, or thrust, of the case itself. XXX, Ms A, is one of the subjects of the allegations and a GMC witness, and XXX [Ms D and Mr E] were also witnesses and have been called to give evidence to the Tribunal. 5. In a further submission Mr Breen added that Ms A has expressed that she wishes for the proceedings and her evidence in chief to be heard in private, and it is important that in order for justice to be served the witnesses must be able to provide their accounts on an unfettered basis. This, given the specific circumstances, can only be achieved through hearing this case entirely in private. Submissions on behalf of Dr Sattar 6. Mr Lambis, Counsel, on behalf of Dr Sattar, confirmed that he supports the application for proceedings to be heard entirely in private. 7. Mr Lambis submitted that the reality of the case is that the regulator, the GMC, has become embroiled in an horrendous XXX dispute, with XXX [Ms D and Mr E] being called as witnesses, one on behalf of either party. 8. Mr Lambis submitted that XXX [Ms D and Mr E] have a right to a private XXX life under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, XXX. He submitted that XXX [Ms D and Mr E] had become



MPT: Dr SATTAR 27

embroiled through no fault of their own. Further, at least one of them has explicitly expressed concerns that the matter may be heard in public and specifically requested that their evidence be heard in private for this reason. 9. It was Mr Lambis’s further submission that “Managing Medical Practitioners Tribunal hearing – Guidance for tribunal chairs” (“the Guidance”), the MPTS Tribunal guidance on hearing proceedings in private, does not adequately address these concerns and was wrong. He submitted that the Tribunal should apply its discretion in making this decision and determine that the hearing be held in private due to the rationale outlined by himself and Mr Breen. 10. It was Mr Lambis’s submission that the need to maintain the anonymity and privacy of these witnesses would not be adequately fulfilled by the hearing proceeding partially in private as this would not prevent the mischief, or maintain the level of privacy this application seeks to address. This need can only be served by hearing the entirety of the proceedings in private due to the inextricably linked nature of the case and parties involved. He described a partially private hearing as an “artifice” which would leave Dr Sattar in a position where he was fettered by concerns for XXX [Ms D and Mr E] when giving his evidence. 11. In his submissions, Mr Lambis queried what public interest would be served by the reporting of the details of the incidents XXX, and particularly the private experience and views of Ms D and Mr E, XXX, and their respective relationships. 12. Mr Lambis submitted that there are other matters involved in this case which both parties are aware of, but which cannot be put before the Tribunal at this time, but which feed directly and inevitably into this application. He told the Tribunal that the matters were partially in the public domain in that the regulator was aware of them. He reiterated that the joint application is not made lightly, and for there to have been a joint application was an unusual feature and one which the Tribunal ought to take account of. The Tribunal’s Decision 13. In considering the application on this matter, the Tribunal referred to Rule 41 of the Rules, which states:

41 (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (6) below, hearings before the Committee and a Medical Practitioners Tribunal shall be held in public.

(2) The Committee or Medical Practitioners Tribunal may determine that the public shall be excluded from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 28

14. The Tribunal had regard to the Guidance which contained a relevant section on considerations of public/private hearings. 15. The decision to conduct the hearing in private was a decision for the Tribunal alone, exercising its own judgement. 16. The Tribunal considered the agreed nature of the application to hold the hearing entirely in private. The parties were agreed that this was in everyone’s interests. It accepted that the joint nature of the application was a rare and unusual feature. 17. The Tribunal also considered the wishes of Ms A and Dr Sattar that the case be heard in private, as XXX [Ms D and Mr E] were being called by them as witnesses. 18. XXX. 19. It had further regard to the email it received whilst in camera, from Mr E, expressing a request on behalf of himself and XXX (Ms D) that the hearing be held in private and his reasons for that, XXX. 20. Following the submission of this email, the Tribunal requested parties return to address outstanding queries on the matter and make any additional submissions in relation to the application. The parties were also given the opportunity to review the Guidance on hearing proceedings in private and respond or provide any further submissions or explanations. 21. The Tribunal further considered the nature and wording of the allegation, which was a document already made available through the MPTS press office prior to the start of the hearing. It contained anonymised names. XXX. It did not consider there was anything of a particularly unusual or sensitive nature in the allegation itself. The Tribunal considered there was already an amount of information in the public domain with regard to this case. 22. The Tribunal took into consideration that Dr Sattar had been the subject of criminal proceedings arising out of the same alleged incidents, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, that those criminal proceedings would have been a matter of public record. 23. In considering the surrounding circumstances, The Tribunal had regard to the steps it had already taken to anonymise the names of the witnesses not referred to in the allegation.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 29

24. The Tribunal took into account, and noted for clarity, that XXX [Ms D and Mr E] due to give evidence are aged 21 and 18 years old and are therefore adults. It considered their statements, in particular in relation to the tensions within the extended family. 25. The Tribunal considered the overarching objective, in particular promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession in determining whether the particular circumstances of this case outweighed the public interest in holding the hearing in public. In doing so it considered the principle of “open justice”, of the need for openness and transparency and public scrutiny of the hearing process. 26. The Tribunal acknowledged the situation in which the XXX from the fallout XXX that could result from a public hearing in which their evidence might be reported. However, it weighed that against the fact that both XXX had chosen to give statements in these proceedings and should have been made aware that they might be called to give evidence without the guarantee of anonymity. 27. The Tribunal agreed that an application to hear proceedings in private, supported by both the doctor’s representatives and the GMC was in itself an unusual or rare circumstance. Whilst the parties advised that there were relevant matters they were not able to disclose to the Tribunal at this stage, the Tribunal noted the force with which the parties, in agreement, submitted this information and gave significant weight to this in reaching its decision. 28. The Tribunal considered that the quality of the witness’ evidence, in particular XXX [Ms D and Mr E], may be adversely affected if the hearing were to be heard in public and they may be reluctant to give a full account because of the XXX identified within the statements and the email. It further agreed with Mr Lambis’s submission that the quality of the doctor’s own evidence may be affected if he were to censor his responses so as not to go against XXX [Ms D and Mr E] wish for privacy. It considered that it would be difficult to manage the hearing fairly by moving in and out of public session continually and this might also confuse the witnesses. 29. The Tribunal recognised that the discretion to sit in private was rarely exercised. However, taking into account all the circumstances, but particularly the need for the witnesses to be able to give evidence in a free and uninhibited manner, it determined that the public interest was best served by the hearing being conducted in private. It considered this to have been a finely balanced decision, but a decision that was fair and just in all the circumstances. 30. The Tribunal was satisfied that the particular circumstances of the case outweighed the general public interest in holding the hearing either in public or partly in private, and that the anonymised findings and outcome will still be made public by the MPTS in due course.



MPT: Dr SATTAR 30

31. The Tribunal therefore determined to hear the entirety of the proceedings in private, exercising its discretion under Rule 41. However, as this case concerns Dr Sattar’s alleged misconduct, a redacted version of this or any determination, will be published after the hearing.

Documents

PUBLIC RECORD - mpts-uk.org · • Mr E, XXX partial witness to the events, in person. 12. The Tribunal also received evidence on behalf of the GMC in the form of witness statements