Download pdf - PUBLIC RECORD - MPTS | Home€¦ · Record of Determinations – Medical Practitioners Tribunal MPT: Dr YASIN 1 PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 06/11/2017 – 15/11/2017 Medical Practitioner’s

Record of Determinations –

Medical Practitioners Tribunal

MPT: Dr YASIN

1

PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 06/11/2017 – 15/11/2017 Medical Practitioner’s 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 Practitioner’s 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.



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 Yasin’s 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 Doctor’s 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 A’s shoulders; To be determined

ii. put your arm around Miss A’s shoulders; Admitted and found

proved

iii. rubbed Miss A’s arm; To be determined

iv. on one or more occasions moved your hands down Miss A’s

body from her shoulders to her waist and back again; To be

determined



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 A’s 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 A’s shoulders; To be

determined

2. pressed your erect penis against Miss A’s 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 B’s back down towards her hips; To

be determined



MPT: Dr YASIN

4

ii. pulled Miss B towards you for a tighter hug; Admitted and

found proved

iii. rubbed yourself against Miss B’s legs; To be determined

iv. thrust your legs against Miss B’s legs; To be determined

v. pushed your erect penis on to Miss B’s leg; To be determined

vi. moved your erect penis back and forth on Miss B’s leg; To be

determined

d. after finishing hugging Miss B, you left your arm around her and

moved your hand down to Miss B’s 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 Yasin’s 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;



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 A’s 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 Tribunal’s 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



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 Tribunal’s 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. Collusion 14. The Tribunal has considered the issue of possible collusion, raised on behalf of Dr Yasin, between the witnesses in this case, in particular Miss A and Miss B. It was not in dispute that Miss A and Miss B spoke to each other during their shift about the events in question. They were not friends outside work. The Tribunal is satisfied that Miss A and Miss B did not collude with each other, neither was there collusion with any other witnesses. Both denied it in cross-examination. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that neither Miss A nor Miss B embellished their accounts consciously or unconsciously. The Tribunal is satisfied Miss A and Miss B simply supported each other to make their formal complaints to Ms F at the end of their shift. The Tribunal accepts Ms F’s evidence that when Miss A and Miss B spoke to her they looked very embarrassed and reluctant. They were both distressed. Miss A was a lot more upset than Miss B and was reluctant to say anything. She was quite tearful. They both appeared awkward.



MPT: Dr YASIN

7

Findings 15. The Tribunal has given separate consideration to each outstanding paragraph of the Allegation and has evaluated the evidence in order to make its findings on the facts. 16. The reasons are grouped together where the paragraphs of the Allegation are linked, in order to minimise repetition. Paragraphs 1a and 1b 17. The Tribunal deemed it necessary at the outset of its consideration of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Allegation to consider Miss A’s credibility. The Tribunal found Miss A to be a credible and reliable witness. In particular, she had a good recollection of the events on 2 April 2016.

18. The Tribunal noted Miss A’s evidence that at the material times she was not a permanent member of staff, she was a student nurse undertaking her degree course. She was undertaking her last placement at the Trust. She was doing Bank work as a Health Care Assistant (HCA). She wanted a job in the Accident and Emergency Department and was doing as many shifts as she could. She was 21 years of age. In her GMC witness statement, dated 24 February, Miss A states she did not want to say anything because Dr Yasin was a doctor and she was just a HCA. In her oral evidence she stated she was reluctant to kick up a fuss and cause trouble. The Tribunal accepted Miss A’s evidence that as far as she was concerned she might have a great deal to lose by making a complaint against Dr Yasin. 19. The Tribunal had regard Miss A’s initial statement, provided to Ms F, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“He had been overly touchy to me the other 2 times I have encountered him. Both times he has put his arm around me and given me compliments. He has previously had an erection that has been noticeable and has given me demeaning looks. Naively I had previously ignored these events, assuming it was just his way to be overfriendly and not expecting the situation to reach the point that it has.”

20. The Tribunal considered Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states: “Two months or so before the incident on the 2 April 2016, I remember

that I had another encounter with Dr Yasin which made me feel uncomfortable. Dr Yasin was standing in the minor's part of the A&E department, behind the desk. I cannot remember if there was anyone



MPT: Dr YASIN

8

else there during that night shift. I was working on that night shift. Dr Yasin came up quite close to me to say thank you, he was praising me for helping him with a job. I cannot remember which job it was. As he was talking to (sic), he touched me. I cannot remember which hand he touched me with. As he was speaking to me, I could tell Dr Yasin had an erection. The erection came on as we were speaking. I moved around the desk and left to do another job. I didn't mention it to anyone.”

21. The Tribunal also considered Miss A’s oral evidence in which she wavered about the position of Dr Yasin’s arm. In any event, she said that any contact by Dr Yasin’s arm seemed a friendly gesture and she did not think anything of it. 22. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence that he could not specifically recall such an occasion and denied ever having been aroused in Miss A’s presence. 23. The Tribunal is satisfied Dr Yasin may have been over familiar towards Miss A before 2 April 2016, however, the Tribunal determined the evidence presented by the GMC in relation to this paragraph of the Allegation was too vague. There was a lack of clear and cogent evidence. 24. As a result, the Tribunal has determined that the GMC has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, the events outlined at paragraphs 1a and 1b occurred, and has therefore found paragraph 1 in its entirety not proved. Paragraph 2 25. The Tribunal deemed it necessary at the outset of its consideration of this paragraph of the Allegation to examine the events generally in the Clinical Decision Unit (CDU) of the Accident and Emergency Department at approximately 10pm on 2 April 2016, in light of the differences in the evidence it was presented with. 26. On that evening Ms D and Miss A were working in CDU on the first floor. The Tribunal determined that when Dr Yasin came to CDU Ms D and Miss A were both behind the Nurses’ Station. Ms D was sitting on a chair, trying to work the computer system. Miss A was standing nearby. Ms D was having issues logging into the system because it was her first and only shift in CDU as a Bank Nurse. This occasion might have been the first time she met Miss A. Ms D had not worked with Dr Yasin. In the main, Ms D was concentrating on the computer. The Tribunal found her to be a credible and reliable witness. Dr Yasin had come up from the ground floor to CDU. He walked behind Ms D and began speaking to Miss A. The Tribunal makes no determination as to why Dr Yasin was in CDU. 27. The Tribunal noted that as a result of what happened between Miss A and Dr Yasin, between 22.21-23.10 on 2 April 2016 Miss A sent a number of WhatsApp messages to a colleague friend who was not on duty, stating, amongst other things:



MPT: Dr YASIN

9

“I really need to speak to you soon got something on my mind and I have no idea who to turn to xxx” “It’s so complicated XXX it’s to do with a member of staff at the hospital. Can’t turn to my mum because it’s too awkward…” “Basically a doctor keeps making me feel really uncomfortable xxxx” “One in A&E and I don’t wanna say over text tbh xxxx” “It makes me feel quite sick xxxx”

Paragraphs 2a, 2a(i) 2a(iii) 2a(iv) 28. The Tribunal has noted Miss A’s initial statement, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“On Saturday the 2nd of April I was working on the clinical decisions unit at New Cross Hospital with [Ms D]. A doctor who I have encountered a handful of times came up to the unit and stood behind the desk. He began rubbing my shoulders, acting very happy to have seen me. He continuously kept his arm around my shoulders whilst rubbing my arm. He then proceeded to put his hand on my waist where he kept moving his hand up and down my body. I told him I really had to go and do some work in order to remove myself from the situation. He made me feel very uncomfortable …”

29. The Tribunal also considered Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states:

“It was a few hours into the shift, but it was definitely before midnight. I was doing my daily jobs when Dr Yasin came to the desk to check on some blood results. I do not know if he spoke to [Ms D] but he came up to me and stood right behind me. He started to rub my shoulders. I was facing the front desk of the station, and Dr Yasin was right behind me. I don’t remember if he said anything to me before putting his arm around my shoulders. Dr Yasin was very touchy feely. He then moved his hands from my shoulders and down to my waist and back up again. Like he was rubbing me. I could not tell you how many times he rubbed me. I instinctively knew something was not right. I felt uncomfortable.”

30. In the Investigation Interview with Miss A on 10 June 2016 Miss A stated:

“…Before that when he had his arm round me he was like just feeling up and down my body. So after that I just felt really violated…”



MPT: Dr YASIN

10

31. The Tribunal also noted in her GMC witness statement Miss A went on to state:

“when I make reference to Dr Yasin moving his arms up and down my body. I cannot recall how many times he did that but it was a few times. I do remember feeling violated.”

32. When she was cross-examined, Miss A confirmed that Dr Yasin’s hand moved up and down her shoulder and that he did move his hands down to her waist and back. 33. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence, reflected by the admissions, that his physical contact with Miss A on this occasion was limited to placing his arm around her upper body in line with the top of her arm/shoulder and patting the top of her arm/shoulder. 34. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss A’s evidence. Accordingly, it has found paragraphs 2a, 2a(i), 2a(iii) and 2a(iv) proved. Paragraphs 2a and 2b 35. The Tribunal noted Miss A’s initial statement, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“Within the next 10 minutes I had to go behind the desk a second time. This was when he asked me for a hug. I felt very vulnerable and after having him ask me a couple of times I agreed, with reluctance to do so.”

36. The Tribunal also had regard to Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states:

“Dr Yasin was still behind the desk when I came back. I cannot recall his exact words, but he did ask me a couple of times for a hug. I felt under pressure and hassled to give him a hug.”

37. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence, reflected by the admission, that he only asked for a hug once. 38. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss A’s evidence. Accordingly, it has found paragraph 2b proved. On the same occasion, Dr Yasin asked Miss A for a hug more than once.



MPT: Dr YASIN

11

Paragraph 2c(ii) 39. The Tribunal noted Miss A’s initial statement, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“He pulled me very closely and I felt his erection which he pressed against my lower abdomen. Breaking free, I hoped this would be the last of his advances. Again this made me feel very uneasy and whilst I had agreed to the hug after feeling somewhat pressured into doing so, I had not expected him to be aroused.”

40. It also considered Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states: “The second and third paragraphs of my statement of the 6 April, XXX

are accurate and details what happened next. Dr Yasin hugged me and in doing so pushed his erection against me.”

41. When cross-examined Miss A stated she didn’t think it was a hard object like a phone or keys. To the contrary, she maintained Dr Yasin did have an erection. 42. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence, reflected by the admissions, that he hugged Miss A and pulled her very close to him. Dr Yasin denied having an erection. He stated he had an old-style Nokia mobile phone in his pocket, together with a key fob. Dr Yasin suggested Miss A must have mistaken these items in his pocket for an erection. Whilst noting Dr Yasin did not mention the contents of his pockets in his Investigation Interview on 13 June 2016, the Tribunal accepts he may well have had such items in his pocket.

43. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss A’s evidence in this regard. Accordingly, it has found paragraph 2c(ii) proved. Paragraphs 2d(i), 2d(ii), 2d(ii)(1) and 2d(ii)(2) 44. The Tribunal noted Miss A’s initial statement to the Trust, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“At this point I stood closer to the nurse ([Ms D]) in an attempt to distance myself to prevent him from touching me again. Despite this he moved to stand by me again. He hugged me for a second time but this time from behind. He wrapped his arms around my shoulders whilst once again pressing his erection onto me, this time against my back. I felt violated and that even though I was stood by another member of staff I did not feel safe.”



MPT: Dr YASIN

12

45. The Tribunal also considered Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states:

“The second and third paragraphs of my statement of the 6 April, XXX are accurate and details what happened next. Dr Yasin hugged me and in doing so pushed his erection against me… …Dr Yasin came up behind me and moved closer. He came up very close so that my back was close to his front. I couldn’t tell you how long the second hug was for. I wanted to get away from him. I felt that I had to get away from him. The kitchen door is by the exit of the CDU ward so I thought I would walk towards the kitchen.”

46. The Tribunal noted Ms D’s GMC witness statement in which she states:

“I then saw Dr Yasin put his arm around Miss A’s neck, and around her shoulders. She had her back to him. I could see clearly because I turned round to my right. Miss A didn’t look at me. Dr Yasin was then hugging her, she had her face towards the front of the nursing station and her back to him. He was hugging her from the back.”

47. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence that he only hugged Miss A once, having asked her, front to front. He denied hugging Miss A from behind and accepted in cross examination that he could have no legitimate reason for doing so. He also accepted that he had not had any problems with Ms D and there was no reason for Ms D to make up the hug from behind. 48. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss A’s and Ms D’s evidence. Accordingly, it has found paragraphs 2d(i), 2d(ii), 2d(ii)(1) and 2d(ii)(2) proved. Paragraph 2e(ii) 49. The Tribunal considered Miss A’s initial statement, dated 6 April 2016, in which she states:

“After this incident I went to go to the kitchen at the other end of the unit, in an attempt to avoid these unwarranted and personally upsetting interactions, I felt like I needed to get away from this doctor. As I walked towards the kitchen he followed me down the corridor. I turned around as I knew he was behind me, here he asked me if I was on shift the next night, he stood in front of me with an erection. It was at this point he left the unit as I went into the kitchen.”



MPT: Dr YASIN

13

50. The Tribunal also had regard to Miss A’s GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, in which she states:

“I walked towards the kitchen door but he followed me and was asking me if I was on a shift tomorrow. I said yes, although I wasn’t. I just wanted to cut the conversation short. Dr Yasin replied that he was also on the shift and then he left CDU. Dr Yasin had a very obvious erection, when he was following me to the kitchen. I felt very embarrassed walking near him.

I am sure it was an erection. It was very clear in that it was poking out like a lump in his trouser.”

51. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence, reflected by the admissions, that he walked down the corridor, past the kitchen, towards the locker room and saw Miss A in the kitchen and spoke to her. He denied having an erection.

52. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss A’s evidence in relation to paragraph 2e(ii) and accordingly has found it proved. The Tribunal accepts Dr Yasin walked down the corridor in order to reach the locker room. Paragraph 3c(i), 3c(iii), 3c(iv), 3c(v) and 3c(vi) 53. The Tribunal deemed it necessary at the outset of its consideration of paragraph 3 of the Allegation to consider Miss B’s credibility. The Tribunal found Miss B to be a credible and reliable witness. Although she accepted in cross examination she did not have the best memory of events now, the Tribunal found Miss B’s evidence on the key issues to be credible and reliable. 54. At the material time Miss B was employed by the Trust as a HCA. In her GMC witness statement, dated 6 March 2017, Miss B states:

“I do not recall when I first met Dr Yasin, but I would have seen him around the A&E Department during my shifts. I knew him as one of the doctors in A&E; I could not say what his specific role was. I had on a few occasions walked past him in the corridor and he had acknowledged me by saying ‘hello’. I thought he was a very friendly doctor. I am not sure how long he was at the Trust for. Although it is very difficult to say, I think on average I saw him at least once a week during my shifts.”

55. The Tribunal noted and accepted Miss B’s evidence that she did not want to cause any fuss; she didn’t want any trouble. She didn’t want Dr Yasin to lose his job because he was a nice man apart from this incident. She hoped the matter would not go to a court or tribunal because it would not be nice for anybody involved. When cross examined, on more than one occasion she said she wouldn’t exaggerate



MPT: Dr YASIN

14

or lie, “it is somebody’s life at the end of the day”. The Tribunal accepted Miss B’s evidence that she had nothing to gain by making a complaint against Dr Yasin. 56. The Tribunal considered it necessary to consider Ms C’s credibility. The Tribunal found Ms C to be an impressive witness, both credible and reliable with a good recall of events. The Tribunal had no difficulty accepting her evidence. 57. The Tribunal deemed it necessary to examine the events generally in ‘Majors’ in the Accident and Emergency Department on the ground floor at approximately 8.30pm on 2 April 2016, in light of the differences in the evidence it was presented with. 58. On that evening, Ms C and Miss B were working together in ‘Majors’. The Tribunal determined that at the material time Ms C and Miss B had together taken a newly arrived dementia patient to the toilet. Once there, Ms C reached the conclusion that the patient could safely be left in the care of Miss B alone. The patient was inside the cubicle and Ms C and Miss B were outside. Ms C started to walk away to attend to other patients. She was opening the door to the sluice when Dr Yasin arrived. 59. The Tribunal considered Miss B’s e-mail, dated 3 April 2016, in which she states:

“The doctor came up to say hello, he put his arm around me as we was talking. He asked for a hug so I gave him one because he looked stressed out. As he was hugging me I could feel him pushing his erection on my leg and pulling me in for a tighter hug. I did feel uncomfortable but I did not say anything to him as I didn’t want to offend him in anyway. As I broke the hug off he continued to put his arm around me and move his hands down my hips.”

60. The Tribunal considered Miss B’s GMC witness statement, dated 6 March 2017, in which she states:

“…he asked me if he could have a hug. I recall him saying something along the lines of ‘Can I have a hug?’. He then put his arms around me although I did not put my arms out. I remember the hug being quite tight. He put both his arms around me... His arms were initially around my mid back and then they started to move down towards my hips. I remember that our bodies were very close. Dr Yasin had an erection and I could feel his erection on my leg. I cannot recall which leg he was pushing his erection against but it was around my thigh area.



MPT: Dr YASIN

15

… he was pushing his erection into my leg and moving his erection back and forth … I was trying to step away but he was hugging me very tight. ... I am sure that Dr Yasin had an erection when he hugged me. I could feel it, it was very hard. His erection came on as he was hugging me. It wasn’t there when he first hugged me, but as he was rubbing himself against my legs, and when he thrust his legs against my legs, I could feel his erection.”

61. The Tribunal notes that in the Investigation Interview with Miss B she states:

“Dr Yasin just came up and he was like “hello, can I have a hug?” Well I gave him a hug and then he started getting a bit tighter and then I could feel his erection pushing into my leg as he was grinding up and down it. … …and then his hands just started moving down my hips.”

62. Miss B’s evidence was that the events made her feel ‘cringey’ and ‘horrible’. In her witness statement to the GMC, Miss B states:

“I think I managed to avoid him for the rest of the shift. I did not go upstairs to the A&E room where the staff room and the locker room are because I was scared. I also took my break after 10.00pm so as to avoid bumping into him again.”

63. When she was cross examined, Miss B confirmed that Dr Yasin’s erection was not there at first when they hugged. She also said she could tell the difference between a mobile phone and an erection. She confirmed that Dr Yasin did rub and grind himself against her. 64. The Tribunal considered the GMC witness statement of Ms C, dated 13 February 2017, in which she states:

“I saw Dr Yasin then hug Miss B. I was standing near the sluice so I could see clearly. I think Nurse B and Dr Yasin spoke, along the lines of ‘hello Miss B’ and then Dr Yasin hugged her. I recall seeing his arms around the top of her shoulder. Miss B did not put her arms around him. He was trying to move towards hugging her, she had her arms down the side of her. I then saw his pelvis move up. Dr Yasin is taller than Miss B, although he is not much taller. I could clearly see the side view of Dr Yasin hugging Miss B. The reason I noticed his pelvis moving up was because it was unusual. Usually when people hug there is front to front but I saw his pelvis move



MPT: Dr YASIN

16

upwards. I did not stay long because I had to go. I cannot say how long the hug lasted because I did not see the end of the hug.”

65. The Tribunal considered Ms C’s e-mail, dated 3 April 2016, in which she states:

“When he hugged Miss B he was very close to her too close of a contact for just a colleague, that’s why I felt uncomfortable.”

66. The Tribunal noted that in the Investigation Interview with Ms C on 10 June 2016, Ms C states:

“…if I’m hugging someone I don’t lift my bottom up like, my crotch the way he did, the way he lifted.”

67. Ms C went on to describe the hug as:

“You know when like you’ve not seen your boyfriend for a long time and you meet at the airport.”

68. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal Ms C confirmed the hug came immediately after the ‘hellos’. When questioned, Ms C stated she was sure she did not miss any conversation before the hug. She confirmed that Dr Yasin had hugged with his whole body, not just his top half, and that he did lift his pelvis up with their full bodies together. She stated the hug was in her full view, she was a few steps away. 69. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence that he was seeking someone’s assistance to stabilise the arm of a patient so that he could insert a cannula. His evidence was that he first saw Ms C and HCA Lino near the toilet cubicle and he asked for their help but they declined. His evidence was that Miss B approached to speak to Ms C and he then asked Miss B to help him. Amongst other things, she told him she was too busy. It was Dr Yasin’s evidence that he asked her again and when doing so, put his arm around her as he was pleading. It was his evidence that again Miss B declined to help. He then tapped her shoulder and told her not to worry and asked for a hug as a gesture to show that there were no hard feelings and for them both to de-stress.

70. It was Dr Yasin’s evidence that during the hug he placed his arms around Miss B at the level of the middle of her back and did not move them up and down. He accepted that the hug may have been too long and too tight for her as reflected by the admissions and that he would have approached the hug using his full body. He denied rubbing or thrusting himself against Miss B. He denied having an erection. Dr Yasin stated he had an old-style Nokia mobile phone in his pocket together with a key fob. Dr Yasin suggested Miss B must have mistaken these items



MPT: Dr YASIN

17

in his pocket for an erection. Again, whilst noting Dr Yasin did not mention the contents of his pockets in his Investigation Interview on 13 June 2016, the Tribunal accepts he may well have had such items in his pocket. Dr Yasin confirmed in cross examination that he had never had any problems with Ms C. She had always been pleasant, polite and helpful towards him. 71. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss B’s and Ms C’s evidence. Accordingly, it has found paragraphs 3c(i), 3c(iii), 3c(iv), 3c(v) and 3c(vi) proved. Paragraph 3d 72. In its consideration of paragraph 3c of the Allegation generally and of paragraph 3c(i) in particular, the Tribunal found the one occasion Dr Yasin moved his arms down towards Miss B’s hips was towards the end of the hug. The Tribunal is not satisfied this happened more than once or that it happened after Dr Yasin finished hugging Miss B. 73. As a result, the Tribunal has determined that the GMC has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, the events outlined at paragraph 3d occurred, and has therefore found paragraph 3d not proved. Paragraph 3e 74. The Tribunal considered Miss B’s e-mail, dated 3 April 2016, in which she states:

“As he walked away he said he would come back for another hug before he went off shift at 10pm. I managed to avoid him for the rest of the shift.”

75. The Tribunal considered Miss B’s GMC witness statement, dated 6 March 2017, in which she states:

“As I stepped back, Dr Yasin said something along the lines of I want another hug before the end of my shift.”

76. The Tribunal also noted in Miss B’s Investigation Interview she stated: “… then he said ‘I’ll catch you again later before I go off shift’.” 77. The Tribunal considered Dr Yasin’s evidence that he did not ask for another hug, nor did he say ‘I’ll see you again before I go off shift’. He thought he had said ‘see you later’. The Tribunal noted that in cross examination Dr Yasin accepted he would have no reason to say that he wanted another hug before he went off shift. 78. The Tribunal preferred and accepted Miss B’s evidence. Accordingly, it has found paragraph 3e proved.



MPT: Dr YASIN

18

Paragraph 4 in relation to paragraph 1 79. As a result of the findings made above at paragraph 1 the Tribunal did not consider paragraph 4 in relation to paragraph 1. Paragraph 4 in relation to paragraphs 2 and 3 80. The Tribunal considered the findings made at paragraphs 2a(iv),2c(ii), 2d(ii), 2d(ii)(1) , 2d(ii)(2), 3c(i), 3c(iii), 3v(iv), 3c(v), 3c(vi) and 3e and is satisfied that the only plausible motivation for Dr Yasin carrying out such actions was sexual motivation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has found paragraph 4 proved in relation to paragraphs 2 and 3. The Tribunal’s Overall Determination on the Facts

81. The Tribunal has determined the facts as follows:

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; Disputed and found not proved

b. had an erect penis. Disputed and found not proved

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: Disputed and found proved

i. rubbed Miss A’s shoulders; Disputed and found proved

ii. put your arm around Miss A’s shoulders; Admitted and found

proved

iii. rubbed Miss A’s arm; Disputed and found proved

iv. on one or more occasions moved your hands down Miss A’s

body from her shoulders to her waist and back again; Disputed

and found proved

b. on one or more occasions asked Miss A for a hug; Admitted and

found proved for one occasion. Found proved for more than

one occasion



MPT: Dr YASIN

19

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 A’s lower abdomen;

Disputed and found proved

d. after Miss A had moved away from you:

i. moved to stand by Miss A again; Disputed and found proved

ii. hugged Miss A from behind during which you: Disputed and

found proved

1. wrapped your arms around Miss A’s shoulders; Disputed

and found proved

2. pressed your erect penis against Miss A’s back; Disputed

and found proved

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. Disputed and

found proved

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 B’s back down towards her hips;




MPT: Dr YASIN

20

ii. pulled Miss B towards you for a tighter hug; Admitted and

found proved

iii. rubbed yourself against Miss B’s legs; Disputed and found

proved

iv. thrust your legs against Miss B’s legs; Disputed and found

proved

v. pushed your erect penis on to Miss B’s leg; Disputed and

found proved

vi. moved your erect penis back and forth on Miss B’s leg;


d. after finishing hugging Miss B, you left your arm around her and

moved your hand down to Miss B’s hips; Disputed and found not

proved

e. said to Miss B ‘I want another hug before the end of my shift,’ or

words to that effect. Disputed and found proved

4. Your actions as set out at paragraphs 1-3 above were sexually motivated. Found not proved in relation to paragraph 1 Disputed and found proved in relation to paragraphs 2 and 3

Determination on Impairment - 14/11/2017 1. The Tribunal now has to decide in accordance with Rule 17(2)(k) of the Rules whether, on the basis of the facts which it has found proved as set out above, Dr Yasin’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. The Tribunal received no further evidence from the GMC. 4. The Tribunal received no further evidence or documentation from or on behalf of Dr Yasin.



MPT: Dr YASIN

21

Submissions

5. On behalf of the GMC, Ms Beattie submitted that it has been found proved by the Tribunal that Dr Yasin sexually assaulted two young, junior members of staff and that his actions would attract opprobrium. She also submitted that Dr Yasin’s behaviour amounted to bullying and/or harassment. Ms Beattie submitted there is a need to declare and uphold proper professional standards and conduct, and to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession. She submitted that, given the serious nature of Dr Yasin’s misconduct and its repetition, a finding of impairment should necessarily follow. 6. Mr Peacock provided the Tribunal with helpful generic written submissions setting out the well-established legal framework for finding misconduct and/or impairment. He indicated that on instructions he had no submissions to make and simply observed that neither misconduct nor impairment were capable of formal admission and that the factual findings of the Tribunal ran counter to Dr Yasin’s evidence. The Relevant Legal Principles

7. The Tribunal reminded itself that at this stage of proceedings, there is no burden or standard of proof and the decision on impairment is a matter for the Tribunal’s judgment alone. 8. In approaching the decision, the Tribunal was mindful that consideration of impairment by serious misconduct involves a two-stage process; first, to consider whether or not the findings of fact, or any of them, amount to serious misconduct on the part of the doctor and then, if so, secondly, to consider whether or not the doctor’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of that serious misconduct. These are two distinct questions. 9. The Tribunal reminded itself that misconduct might involve an act or acts which fall short of the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed, in this case set out in Good Medical Practice (2013). Both parties agreed that serious misconduct might include “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”. 10. The Tribunal’s task is to determine whether Dr Yasin’s fitness to practise is impaired today looking forward to the future, taking into account his conduct on 2 April 2016, together with any relevant evidence of subsequent events, including evidence which might show insight and/or remediation. 11. The Tribunal has been mindful of the overarching objective of the GMC set out in section 1 of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended) to:



MPT: Dr YASIN

22

a. Protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,

b. Promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and c. Promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for

members of that profession. 12. The Tribunal also took account of the first three criteria for impairment identified by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman report, and frequently cited with approval:

“Do our findings of fact … show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he:

a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a

patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical

profession into disrepute; and/or c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the

fundamental tenets of the medical profession”.

The Tribunal’s Determination on Impairment

Misconduct

13. The Tribunal had particular regard to paragraphs 1, 36 and 65, of Good Medical Practice (2013) which state:

“1. Patients need good doctors. Good doctors … establish and maintain good relationships with patients and colleagues, are honest and trustworthy, and act with integrity and within the law. 36. You must treat colleagues fairly and with respect. 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies… the public’s trust in the profession.” This paragraph was relevant only to integrity, not honesty.

14. The Tribunal then considered whether Dr Yasin’s actions in relation to Miss A and Miss B amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal had regard to Dr Yasin’s conduct on 2 April 2016, as proved, the facts of which have already been fully rehearsed. Of particular significance, there were two separate complainants, both young, junior female colleagues, a student Nurse and a HCA respectively. Dr Yasin sexually assaulted each of them in the workplace within a period of approximately two hours between 8-10pm. In relation to Miss B, Dr Yasin hugged her and rubbed himself against her legs and then thrust his legs against her legs. He pushed his erect penis on to her leg and moved it back and forth. Dr Yasin then moved his



MPT: Dr YASIN

23

arms from Miss B’s back towards her hips. The ‘hug’ having finished, Dr Yasin said words to the effect of ‘I want another hug before the end of my shift’. In relation to Miss A Dr Yasin stood behind her and moved his hands from her shoulders down her body to her waist and back again. Miss A left the immediate vicinity and upon her return some minutes later Dr Yasin hugged her front to front, pressing his erect penis against her lower abdomen. Miss A broke free and stood closer to Ms D. Dr Yasin moved to stand by her again and hugged her from behind, wrapping his arms around her shoulders, pressing his erect penis into her back. 15. The Tribunal has determined that Dr Yasin abused his position as a doctor, preying on junior colleagues. Dr Yasin’s actions fell far short of the relevant guidance in Good Medical Practice (2013) set out above. His conduct “would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners” as well as by members of the public.

16. The Tribunal is in no doubt that Dr Yasin’s conduct on 2 April 2016 amounted to serious misconduct. Impairment 17. Having found serious misconduct, the Tribunal went on to consider whether, as a result of that serious misconduct, Dr Yasin’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. 18. The Tribunal has determined that by his actions on 2 April 2016, set out in summary above, Dr Yasin breached fundamental tenets of the medical profession and in doing so brought the medical profession into disrepute. 19. The Tribunal has determined that Dr Yasin has shown limited insight into the less serious allegations made against him, reflected by the admissions and the limited apologies made to Miss A and Miss B that the ‘hugs’ were too tight and too long. In his witness statement, dated 27 October 2017, Dr Yasin states:

“I now appreciate that by even asking for a hug, I placed both Miss A and Miss B in a difficult position … I did not appreciate that Miss A and Miss B might not have felt able to refuse a hug. I have changed my behaviour as a direct result of these complaints and no longer engage in physical contact with colleagues. … … I acknowledge that I did not give thought to how a hug should be undertaken and how such a hug with a colleague may differentiate from a hug with someone I was more familiar. It was never my intention to cause either Miss A or Miss B alarm or distress through my actions …”



MPT: Dr YASIN

24

20. However, the Tribunal has determined in relation to the more serious aspects of his behaviour Dr Yasin has shown no insight. As Mr Peacock conceded, our findings ran counter to Dr Yasin’s evidence.

21. The Tribunal has received no evidence of any considered attempts at remediation by Dr Yasin to address his conduct. 22. The Tribunal has determined that in the absence of any significant insight or attempts at remediation, there remains a risk that Dr Yasin is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession and/or to bring the medical profession into disrepute. 23. The Tribunal has also determined that the need to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the medical profession, and to promote and maintain public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this case. 24. For all of the reasons set out above the Tribunal has determined that Dr Yasin’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his serious misconduct. Determination on Sanction - 15/11/2017 1. Having determined that Dr Yasin’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of serious misconduct, the Tribunal now has to decide, in accordance with Rule 17(2)(n) of the Rules, on the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose. The Evidence 2. The Tribunal has taken into account evidence received during the earlier stages of the hearing where relevant to reaching a decision on sanction. 3. The Tribunal received no further evidence from the GMC. 4. The Tribunal received the following further evidence on behalf of Dr Yasin:

Six verified testimonials in support of Dr Yasin from colleagues and;

A certificate of attendance at a training course ‘Introduction to Professional Boundaries’ on 5 April 2017.

Submissions 5. On behalf of the GMC, Ms Beattie submitted that Dr Yasin’s actions were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, and that as a result, the only appropriate sanction was one of erasure. She drew the Tribunal’s attention to a



MPT: Dr YASIN

25

number of paragraphs of Sanctions Guidance (SG) (May 2017), which included paragraphs 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 24-26, 31, 34, 37, 45, 46, 48- 50, 55, 67, 91, 93 and 107-109. 6. Ms Beattie reminded the Tribunal that although Dr Yasin attended a course concerning professional boundaries in April 2017, he accepted when he gave evidence that he had previously received such training when seeking to become a GP. She pointed to the fact that Dr Yasin had denied the seriousness of the allegations in this case. 7. Ms Beattie highlighted aggravating features in this case as including a particularly serious departure from GMP, an abuse of professional position/position of trust, predatory behaviour and sexual misconduct. Ms Beattie submitted Dr Yasin’s conduct was insidious and unpleasant and was particularly serious because of its context. Although Miss A and Miss B were not vulnerable patients, they were junior colleagues who had a right and expectation to work alongside colleagues without being exposed to sexual behaviour of this nature.

8. Ms Beattie submitted that taking no action would be inappropriate and that there were no workable conditions which could be imposed on Dr Yasin’s registration. 9. Ms Beattie recognised that suspending Dr Yasin’s registration could have a deterrent effect and send out a clear signal that such behaviour will not be tolerated. However, she submitted that given the nature of Dr Yasin’s misconduct and its context, his lack of insight and the impact of his behaviour on the reputation of the profession, suspension would be insufficient. 10. Ms Beattie submitted Dr Yasin’s name should be erased from the medical register to protect the public and to promote and maintain both public confidence in the medical profession and proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession. 11. Mr Peacock, on behalf of Dr Yasin, submitted the Tribunal should not erase Dr Yasin’s name from the Medical Register, but that Dr Yasin’s registration be suspended. 12. Mr Peacock submitted that whilst serious, on the range of seriousness for this type of behaviour, Dr Yasin’s conduct was towards the lower end of that range. He made it plain that he did not seek to diminish the evidence of the effect of Dr Yasin’s behaviour on Miss A or Miss B. 13. Mr Peacock submitted that Dr Yasin’s conduct on 2 April 2016 was entirely out of character and there was a public interest in allowing Dr Yasin, a doctor who has to date provided proper medical care to patients, to return to practice. He informed



MPT: Dr YASIN

26

the Tribunal that no interim order had been made, which was relevant because this had allowed Dr Yasin to continue in practice and there have been no reported concerns since. He suggested the likelihood of a repetition of this uncharacteristic behaviour was ‘vanishingly small’. Mr Peacock also confirmed that Dr Yasin is the main breadwinner for his family unit.

14. Mr Peacock submitted Dr Yasin has shown at least partial insight, as demonstrated in his witness statement, by his admissions and in his expressions of remorse and apology, repeated in public, to both Miss A and Miss B. He submitted Dr Yasin has a capacity for reflection and that a sanction less than erasure would enable him to work further on insight.

15. Mr Peacock submitted, bad though it was, Dr Yasin’s behaviour was not fundamentally incompatible with his continued registration. The Tribunal’s Determination on Sanction

16. The Tribunal reminded itself that again at this stage of proceedings, there is no burden or standard of proof and the decision on sanction is a matter for the Tribunal’s judgment alone. 17. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has given careful consideration to SG generally. It has borne in mind the main reason for imposing sanctions is to protect the public pursuant to the overarching objective set out in section 1 of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended), already rehearsed in our determination on impairment. Sanctions are not imposed to punish or discipline doctors, but they may have a punitive effect. 18. The Tribunal has borne in mind that in deciding what sanction, if any, to impose, it should consider the sanctions available, starting with the least restrictive. It should also have regard to the principle of proportionality, weighing the interests of the public against those of the doctor. 19. The Tribunal has given particular consideration to paragraph 17 of SG, which states:

“Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health, so doctors must make sure that their conduct justifies their patients’ trust in them and the public’s trust in the profession (see paragraph 65 of Good medical practice). Although the tribunal should make sure the sanction it imposes is appropriate and proportionate, the reputation of the profession as a whole is more important than the interest of any individual doctor.”



MPT: Dr YASIN

27

Mitigating factors 20. The Tribunal has noted that Dr Yasin has hitherto been a man of good character. Additionally, he has never previously been disciplined by the GMC, having qualified in 2009. Dr Yasin has been at work since the allegations in April 2016 and there has been no complaint of any kind since then.

21. The Tribunal considered the ‘character’ evidence to be found within the witness statements of the witnesses called by the GMC. Miss B states in her witness statement dated 6 March 2017:

“I had on a few occasions walked past him in the corridor and he had acknowledged me by saying ‘hello’. I thought he was a very friendly doctor.”

22. Ms C states in her witness statement dated 13 February 2017:

“From the times that I had interactions with him, I found him to be very approachable and polite. For example if I needed him to check on a patient that I was looking after, he would happily assist. He never refused.”

23. Ms F states in her witness statement dated 10 February 2017:

“I always found Dr Yasin to be very polite, pleasant and approachable. He was also very helpful. If I needed him to see a patient, he would happily see the patient. I had no issues with him at all.”

24. The Tribunal considered the six positive testimonials provided at this stage of the proceedings, which speak of the behaviour the Tribunal has found proved, as being out of character. Dr Yasin is described variously as:

“…a diligent doctor … quietly got on with his work in a professional manner. I felt his clinical skills and knowledge were at a level expected of his training and experience.” “…a competent and reliable clinician delivering expected standard of care to his patients. He has maintained a good rapport with his medical and paramedical colleagues at both sites and is well respected.” “…very pleasant and a valuable member of A/E team and his hard work was well appreciated by my colleagues. His conduct and behaviour is good.”

25. The Tribunal has borne in mind that Dr Yasin’s conduct occurred within a period of approximately two hours between 8-10pm during one shift. The Tribunal accepts that Dr Yasin was working in a stressful environment; as were his colleagues.



MPT: Dr YASIN

28

26. The Tribunal has taken into account the certificate provided at this stage of proceedings, which shows that on 5 April 2017 Dr Yasin attended a 6.5 hour training course entitled ‘Introduction to Professional Boundaries’ provided by The Clinic for Boundaries Studies.

27. The Tribunal has already determined, when considering impairment, that Dr Yasin has at least shown limited insight into the less serious allegations made against him, reflected by the admissions and the limited apologies made to Miss A and Miss B that the ‘hugs’ were too tight and too long. The Tribunal has reminded itself of the relevant sections of Dr Yasin’s witness statement, dated 27 October 2017, which deal with insight, set out in our determination on impairment but not repeated here.

28. The Tribunal has taken account of the fact that Dr Yasin has engaged with the GMC/MPTS process. Aggravating factors 29. The Tribunal has considered carefully Dr Yasin’s conduct on 2 April 2016. Of particular significance, there were two separate complainants, both young, junior female colleagues. Miss A was not a permanent member of staff, she was a student nurse undertaking her degree course. She was undertaking her last placement at the Trust. She was doing Bank work as a HCA. She wanted a job in the Accident and Emergency Department and was doing as many shifts as she could. She was 21 years of age. In her GMC witness statement, dated 24 February 2017, Miss A states she did not want to say anything because Dr Yasin was a doctor and she was just a HCA. In her oral evidence, she stated she was reluctant to kick up a fuss and cause trouble. The Tribunal accepted, when determining the facts, that as far as Miss A was concerned she might have a great deal to lose by making a complaint against Dr Yasin. Miss B was a HCA. 30. Dr Yasin sexually assaulted Miss B and then Miss A in the workplace. In relation to Miss B, Dr Yasin hugged her and rubbed himself against her legs and then thrust his legs against her legs. He pushed his erect penis on to her leg and moved it back and forth. Dr Yasin then moved his arms from Miss B’s back towards her hips. The ‘hug’ having finished Dr Yasin said words to the effect of ‘I want another hug before the end of my shift’. In relation to Miss A, Dr Yasin stood behind her and moved his hands from her shoulders down her body to her waist and back again. Miss A left the immediate vicinity and upon her return some minutes later, Dr Yasin hugged her front to front, pressing his erect penis against her lower abdomen. Miss A broke free and stood closer to Ms D. Dr Yasin moved to stand by her again and hugged her from behind, wrapping his arms around her shoulders, pressing his erect penis into her back.



MPT: Dr YASIN

29

31. As the Tribunal has already determined, in acting in this way, Dr Yasin abused his position as a doctor, preying on junior colleagues. His behaviour during the material two-hour period was persistent. Dr Yasin’s behaviour fell far short of the relevant guidance in GMP (2013), the paragraphs of which are set out above in our determination on impairment. The Tribunal has found Dr Yasin’s conduct “would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners” as well as by members of the public.

32. The Tribunal has determined that in relation to the more serious aspects of his behaviour, Dr Yasin has shown no insight. As Mr Peacock again conceded, our findings ran counter to Dr Yasin’s evidence.

33. The Tribunal has determined that Dr Yasin has made only a limited attempt at remediation to address his conduct, in particular, the attendance on one course in April 2017. No Action 34. In coming to its decision as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose in Dr Yasin’s case, the Tribunal first considered whether to take no action. The Tribunal considered, amongst others, paragraphs 68-70 SG. 35. The Tribunal noted paragraph 68 of SG in particular, which states that taking no action following a finding of impaired fitness to practise would only be appropriate in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal has determined that there are no such exceptional circumstances in this case and, therefore, taking no action would be neither appropriate nor proportionate. Conditions

36. The Tribunal next considered whether it would be sufficient to impose

conditions on Dr Yasin’s registration. It bore in mind that any conditions imposed

would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable and also be

sufficient to guard against any risks identified.

37. The Tribunal noted that no submissions had been made by either party to the effect that conditions would be sufficient in the circumstances of this case. 38. The Tribunal considered paragraphs 79-90 of SG, amongst others, and determined that given the seriousness of Dr Yasin’s misconduct it would not be possible to formulate appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable conditions.



MPT: Dr YASIN

30

Suspension 39. The Tribunal next considered whether it would be sufficient to suspend Dr Yasin’s registration. In doing so, it has, amongst others, considered paragraphs 91-106 of SG. It found the following paragraphs to be of particular relevance:

92 “…A period of suspension will be appropriate for conduct that is serious but falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration (ie for which erasure is more likely to be the appropriate sanction because the tribunal considers that the doctor should not practise again either for public safety reasons or to protect the reputation of the profession).”

97 “Some or all of the following factors being present (this list is not exhaustive) would indicate suspension may be appropriate.

a A serious breach of Good medical practice, but where the doctor’s misconduct is not fundamentally incompatible with their continued registration, therefore complete removal from the medical register would not be in the public interest…”

40. The Tribunal also found the following paragraphs, of general effect, to be of particular relevance:

138 “More serious outcomes are likely to be appropriate if there are serious findings that involve:

a bullying

b sexual harassment…”

150 “Sexual misconduct seriously undermines public trust in the profession. The misconduct is particularly serious where there is an abuse of the special position of trust a doctor occupies … More serious action, such as erasure, is likely to be appropriate in such cases.”

41. The Tribunal has recognised that suspension may have a deterrent effect and can be used to send a signal to the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting a registered doctor. It also has a punitive effect, although that is not its intention. 42. However, the Tribunal has already determined that by his serious misconduct on 2 April 2016, set out in summary above, Dr Yasin breached fundamental tenets of the medical profession and in doing so brought the medical profession into disrepute. Dr Yasin’s conduct “would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners” as well as by members of the public. The Tribunal has determined



MPT: Dr YASIN

31

that Dr Yasin abused the special position of trust a doctor occupies and demonstrated sexually motivated predatory behaviour towards two junior female colleagues in the workplace, who were vulnerable by virtue of Dr Yasin’s respective seniority. Having sexually assaulted Miss B, within a period of approximately two hours, Dr Yasin persisted in his sexually motivated predatory behaviour when he then sexually assaulted Miss A. His behaviour towards Miss A, the more vulnerable of the two complainants, was particularly persistent as he continued in his actions twice after she had moved away from him. Subsequently, Dr Yasin has shown limited insight into the less serious allegations made against him, and has shown little or no insight in relation to the more serious aspects of his behaviour. He has made only a limited attempt at remediation to address his behaviour. 43. The Tribunal has determined that in all the circumstances, Dr Yasin’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and therefore a period of suspension would not be an appropriate or proportionate sanction. Erasure 44. Having determined that suspension would not be an appropriate sanction for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has determined that Dr Yasin’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and therefore his name should be erased from the medical register. 45. The Tribunal has, amongst others, considered paragraphs 107-111 of SG. It found the following paragraphs to be of particular relevance:

108 “Erasure may be appropriate even where the doctor does not present a risk to patient safety, but where this action is necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession.” 109 “Any of the following factors being present may indicate erasure is appropriate (this list is not exhaustive):

a A particularly serious departure from the principles set

out in Good Medical Practice where the behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor.

…

d Abuse of position/trust (see Good medical practice, paragraph 65: ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession’).

…

f Offences of a sexual nature...”



MPT: Dr YASIN

32

46. For the reasons it considered suspension would not be an appropriate or proportionate sanction, set out above, the Tribunal has determined that erasure of Dr Yasin’s name from the medical register is the only appropriate or proportionate sanction. In all of the circumstances of this case, only erasure will promote and maintain both public confidence in the medical profession and proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

47. The effect of the foregoing direction is that, unless Dr Yasin exercises his right of appeal, his name will be erased from the Medical Register 28 days from the date on which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon him.

Determination on Immediate Order - 15/11/2017 1. Having determined that erasure is the appropriate sanction in this case, the Tribunal has considered, in accordance with Rule 17(2)(o) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004, whether Dr Yasin’s registration should be subject to an immediate order. Submissions 2. On behalf of the GMC, Ms Beattie submitted that an immediate order of suspension is appropriate in order to protect the public interest, given the seriousness of the misconduct recorded in the Tribunal’s determination on sanction. She drew the Tribunal’s attention to paragraphs 172-178 onwards of SG (May 2017). 3. On behalf of Dr Yasin, Mr Peacock had no submissions to make. The Tribunal’s Determination 4. The Tribunal had particular regard to paragraphs 173 and 178 of SG, which state:

173 “An immediate order might be particularly appropriate in cases where … immediate action must be taken to protect public confidence in the medical profession.” 178 “Having considered the matter, the decision whether to impose an immediate order will be at the discretion of the tribunal based on the facts of each case. The tribunal should consider the seriousness of the matter that led to the substantive direction being made and whether it is appropriate for the doctor to continue in unrestricted practice before the substantive order takes effect.”

5. In light of the seriousness of Dr Yasin’s misconduct, the Tribunal has determined that an immediate order be made suspending Dr Yasin’s registration forthwith in order to protect public confidence in the medical profession.



MPT: Dr YASIN

33

6. The immediate order of suspension will remain in force until the substantive direction of erasure takes effect, or until the outcome of any appeal is decided. The substantive sanction of erasure as already announced will take effect 28 days from when written notice is deemed to have been served upon Dr Yasin, unless an appeal is lodged in the interim. Confirmed Date 15 November 2017 Mr Richard Tutt, Chair