Click here to load reader

PUBLIC RECORD - mpts-uk.org · PDF file • 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

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of PUBLIC RECORD - mpts-uk.org · PDF file • Mr E, XXX partial witness to the events, in...

  • 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.

  • Record of Determinations –

    Medical Practitioners Tribunal

    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.

  • Record of Determinations –

    Medical Practitioners Tribunal

    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

  • Record of Determinations –

    Medical Practitioners Tribunal

    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

  • Record of Determinations –

    Medical Practitioners Tribunal

    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. • M