se

 

In the Family Health Services Appeal Authority†††††††††††††† case no: 11326

Heard at Harrogate

 

On 20 October 2004

 

 

 

 

 

Before

 

Mr J D Atkinson (Chairman)

Dr R K Rathi

Mr C M Barnes

 

 

Between

 

 

Darlington Primary Care Trust

Applicant

 

 

and

 

Dr Syed Amjad Husain

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

Representation:

 

For the Applicant:††††††††††† None in attendance

For the Respondent:†††††† None in attendance

 

Prior to the hearing the panel members confirmed that they had no prior involvement or knowledge of the case.

 

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

The Application

 

1.††††† This is an application by Darlington PCT for National Disqualification of Dr ††††† Syed Amjad Husain under section 49 the National Health Act 1977(as †††††††† amended) and associated regulations.

The Proceedings

 

2.††††† On 19 July 2004 the Applicant applied for removal of the Respondent from the performers list and a national disqualification on the ground that he had been convicted in the United Kingdom of a criminal offence and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of over six months.

 

3.††††† The Respondent neither opposed nor consented to the application. In a letter dated 26 August 2004 the Respondentís representative, Dr W Smith of the Medical Protection Society, stated that the Respondent would not be attending an oral hearing nor would he be represented.

 

4.††††† For the hearing, the Panel had before it a bundle of documents numbered to page 38 which included an official transcript of proceedings held at the Combined Court Centre in Leeds on 17 May 2004 before HisHonour Judge N Jones.

 

5.†††† The Panel proceeded in the absence of the parties.

 

The Law

 

6.††††† The relevant law is set out in section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and the National HealthService (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004. Itmay be summarised so far as is relevantas follows:

 

The Primary Care Trust must remove the performer from its list of performers where it becomes aware that he has been convicted in the United Kingdom of a criminal offence and had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of over six months.

If the FHSAA removes the practitioner from a list, it may also decide to disqualify him by imposing a national disqualification.

 

Findings of Fact

 

  1. The Respondent was born on 26 December 1973. Hequalified as a doctor in 1997, graduating from Dundee University. In October 2001 he became a salaried general practitioner at a practice known as Orchard House.

 

  1. On 23 July 2003 a complaint was made about the Respondent to the partners at the Orchard House Practice. On 28 July 2003 the partners, after conducting preliminaryinquiries and interviewing the Respondent, suspended him and contacted the police.

 

  1. As a result of subsequent investigation the Respondent was charged with twenty five counts of sexual offences covering events over the period February 2003 to July 2003. The nature of the offences ranged from indecent assault including such assault on a child aged 7, and the possession, taking andmaking of indecent photographs.

 

  1. The Respondent initially pleaded not guilty. However before trial the Respondent indicated that he wished to plead guilty on all counts save for three.

 

  1. On 17 May 2004 His Honour Judge Jones heard the Respondentís guilty pleas and the submissions of counsel for the prosecution and defence.

 

  1. The Respondent pleaded guilty to 4 counts of indecent assaults.

 

  1. The first offence of indecent assault (count 1) involved the Respondent carrying out a full internal examination of woman.

 

  1. The second offence of indecent assault(count 2) involved an elderly patient of 74. The Respondent filmed himself touching her breasts, rubbing her vaginal and clitoral area and pressing his exposed penis against her buttocks.

 

  1. The thirdoffence of indecent assault (count 5) involved a nine year old girl . The Respondent filmed himself repeatedly rubbing the girlís clitoris and vaginal opening.

 

  1. The fourth offence (count 7) involved an unidentified women in respect of whom the Respondent filmed himself stimulating his patientís vagina.

 

  1. The Respondent also pleaded guilty to 2 offences of taking indecent photographs of his patients (counts 4 and 6). The Respondent had used a camera hidden in a tissue box and placed in the examination room.

 

  1. In addition, the Respondent pleaded guilty to 19 other offences relating to making and possessing indecent photographs of children. The images included those of children aged between about 5 and 13 years performing oral sex or being involved in penetrative sex with an adult.

 

  1. In total 86 undeleted images were recovered from the Respondentís computer. A further 1,508 images had been deleted.

 

 

 

  1. The Judge handed down the following sentences

 

††† A††††††††††† a sentence of two-and-a-half years imprisonment in respect of the 4 ††† counts of indecent assault

 

††† B††††††††††† a sentence of twelve months of imprisonment for the 2 offences of taking indecent photographs of patients, to run consecutive with the indecent assault sentences, making a total of three-andĖa half years of imprisonment

 

††† C††††††††††† a sentence of 3 months imprisonment in respect of 11 charges of making indecent photographs of a child, to run concurrent with the above sentences

 

††† D††††††††††† a sentence of eight months imprisonment in respect of 5 charges of possession of photographs depicting sexual penetrative acts against children, to run concurrent with the above sentences

 

21. In addition, the Respondent was made subject to the following:

 

††††††††† An extended two year period of licence

 

††††††††† Registration on the Sex Offenders Register for life

 

††††††††† Prohibition from working with children for life

 

22. The three outstanding charges of indecent assault were ordered to lie on the file marked not to be proceeded with save for order of the court.

 

23. In arriving at the sentences the Judge noted the mitigating features of the case and the views expressed in the Pre Sentence Report that the Respondent has a medium risk of sexual reoffending

Decision and Reasons

 

  1. The Panel imposes a National Disqualification on Dr Syed Amjad Husain.

 

  1. The Panel finds that National Disqualification is an appropriate and proportionate sanction given the facts of the case. The Panel note in particular the following features which are indicative of the seriousness with which the Respondentís actions should be regarded:

 

†††††††† - the sexual nature of the offences

 

†††††††† - the age and vulnerability of the victims who range from young children to the elderly

 

†††††††† - the breach of trust arising from offences committed against the Respondentís own patients

 

†††††††† - the number of offences

†††††††† -the commission of offences over a relatively short period of time and within the last 18 months

 

†††††††† - the assessment of the Respondent as being at a medium risk of sexual reoffending

†††††††† - the length of the sentences imposed

 

†††††††† - the imposition of an extended licence

 

†††††††† - the Respondentís entry on the Sex Offenders Register

 

†††††††† - the imposition of a lifetime prohibition against working with children

 

26.††† The Panel is of the view that the risks posed by the Respondent are not restricted either to the geographic area in which the Applicant offers services nor any one single list. Accordingly, the Panel imposes a National Disqualification in respect of all lists.

 

Summary

 

 

27.††† The Panel orders that Dr Syed Amjad Husain be Nationally Disqualified from all lists.

 

28.Any party to these proceedings has the right to appeal this decision under and by virtue of section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992

 

 

 

Signed††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Date

 

 

MR J D Atkinson

Chairman

 

Dr R K Rathi - Professional Member

 

Mr C M Barnes - Lay Member