“5 Briefly stated, the circumstances of the offence were as follows: on22 August 2018 , the Appellant was behind the wheel of his vehicle in the car park of Highbury Park in Moseley, Birmingham. As he was about to leave the car park, the victim of the offence drove along the access road and was about to turn right into the car park. The Appellant’s vehicle approached the victim’s vehicle head-on. Both vehicles stopped ‘nose to nose’. The Appellant lost control of his temper when the victim’s vehicle did not move despite the Appellant gesturing that he should. 6 As the Appellant got out of his car, he shouted offensive language at the victim. The victim attempted to tell the Appellant that he was going to park in one of the two spaces available in the car park. However, the Appellant refused to listen and continued to shout, using offensive language. The Judge described the language used by the Appellant, which was heard by a member of the public, as ‘absolutely disgusting’. 7 The victim then got back into his vehicle and then out again to pacify his dog who was yelping in the back. The Appellant became angry again, revved his engine, reversed slightly and then drove in the direction of the victim who was standing by his open, front car door. The Appellant drove his vehicle in a curve as if to drive around the victim’s car and then changed angle so he could side-swipe the victim. The Crown Court Judge found that the Appellant drove his vehicle deliberately at the victim and intended to hit him. 8 The Appellant’s car wing mirror struck the victim and he fell to the ground. The victim, who was 83 or 84 years old at the time of the incident, suffered minor injuries, which included a cut to his wrist, bruising to his right hand and swelling of his wrist. The Appellant then left the scene. 9 The Appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ before the Crown Court in Birmingham. However, he was found guilty of the offence. In his sentencing remarks, the Crown Court Judge described the incident as ‘a clear case of road rage’. He took the circumstances of the incident (including the injury to the victim) as aggravating the commission of the offence. Although there was no separate charge of violence or inflicting violence on the victim, it is plain that the Judge was perfectly entitled to find those matters proved and take them into account in sentencing the Appellant.”
“3. The allegations which led to the Determination arose out of a statement (‘the Declaration’) which the Appellant made in June 2020 in answer to a question on a Disclosure and Barring Service Declaration Form (‘the Form’). The Declaration was made as part of the Appellant’s application to the Bringing Back Staff programme. That was a programme which sought to return staff to the NHS to address the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. On7th June 2020 the Appellant returned the Form to Natalie Burbidge who had been seconded to that programme. 4. The Appellant answered ‘yes’ to question 7 on the Form which asked: ‘Are you currently subject to a fitness to practise investigation and/or proceedings of any nature by a regulatory or licensing body, which may have a bearing on your suitability for the position you are applying for?’ . 5. The Form said: ‘If you have ticked YES, please provide the reasons given for the investigation and (where applicable) the details of any warnings, conditions or sanctions (including limitations, suspension or any other restrictions) that apply to your professional registration and, the name and address of the regulatory or licensing body concerned’ 6.In the space provided for providing that information the Appellant said: ‘I am not subject to any current/new fitness to practice investigations and/or proceedings. I am subject to ongoing GMC Conditions for 24 months; this is after non-specific GMC investigation and Performance Assessment that led to a prior 6-month suspension. Please see MPTS listings including attached conditions.’”
“The hearing addressing the findings of fact and the issue of whether there was impairment of the Appellant’s fitness to practise lasted from 9th to31st October 2023 . On24th October 2023 at the conclusion of the first part of that hearing the Tribunal found that the Appellant’s answer to question 7 was untrue; that it had been made knowingly; and that his actions had been dishonest. On31st October 2023 it found that the Appellant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of the misconduct in the form of dishonesty. There was a further hearing lasting from 26th to28th February 2024 at which the issue of sanction was considered. At the end of that hearing the Tribunal concluded that the only appropriate sanction was that of erasure of the Appellant’s name from the Register.”
“That in the telephone conversation in March 2020 with Miss Burbidge of the Bringing Back Staff team the Appellant had explained about his dangerous driving conviction and the forthcoming sentencing hearing. The Appellant said that he had told Miss Burbidge that he expected the GMC to commence an investigation against him but had been told that the potential actions of the GMC were irrelevant because he was not being considered for a position as a doctor.”
“I agree with the Appellant that the dispute as to what had been said between him and Miss Burbidge was a significant issue and one which was material to the central questions in the proceedings below. If the Appellant’s account of that conversation was correct it would mean that he had been open about the prospect of a GMC investigation with the Bringing Back Staff team from the outset in March 2020 and, more significant, that he had been told that the team was not concerned about the potential for such an investigation flowing from the conviction. This would, in turn, throw light on the making of the Declaration in June 2020. That Declaration was made to the Bringing Back Staff team. Acceptance of the Appellant’s account of those matters would have been relevant to his assertion that the terms of the Declaration arose from his failure properly to check a draft he had prepared earlier. That, and the contention that he had told that any GMC investigation was irrelevant to the Bringing Back Staff team, would also be relevant to the issue of whether the Appellant had been dishonest. That is particularly so in circumstances where he attached details of his conviction and sentence and of the conditions arising from the earlier fitness to practise proceedings to the Form. There can be no suggestion that the Appellant was trying to conceal his conviction or sentence from the Bringing Back Staff team. In addition, it is relevant that question 7 was asking about matters ‘which may have a bearing on your suitability for the position you are applying for’. In those circumstances an assertion by Miss Burbidge that the Bringing Back Staff team was not concerned about GMC investigations was potentially relevant to the honesty of the answer. At the very least acceptance of the Appellant’s account of the March 2020 conversation would have meant that the terms of that conversation and the Appellant’s understanding as a result of that would need to be considered by the Tribunal when it was addressing whether he had been acting honestly or dishonestly. If the untrue Declaration related to a matter which the Appellant believed was irrelevant in circumstances where that belief was due to what the Appellant had been told by the body to whom the Declaration was being made there would be real scope for debate as to whether it could properly be found to have been made dishonestly. Even if there were found to have been dishonesty a finding that the Appellant’s version of the conversation was correct would be relevant to the consideration of the gravity of his conduct.”
“I am nonetheless driven to the conclusion that even on the most benevolent reading of the Determination and even when full account is taken of the context this ground is made out. The only realistic reading of the Determination is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the potential significance of the Appellant’s case as to what had been said between him and Miss Burbidge and that it failed to make a finding on that issue. It follows that the Tribunal failed to address and to make a finding on a significant matter of dispute the resolution of which was material to the decision on the allegations. In those circumstances this ground of appeal succeeds. As a consequence, ground 1(iii) also succeeds in that it was not open to the Tribunal to make a finding that the Appellant was dishonest without having resolved this issue.”
“The Tribunal was impressed that Ms Burbridge in oral evidence did her best to be fair in her recollections. Despite the passage of five years, the Tribunal was satisfied that on the significant matters she did remember Dr Ali's case. It considered her evidence to have been credible and noted that her witness statement supported her oral evidence. Asked about the first telephone call, she stated that she could not actually remember the sequence of the conversation but she described the format the conversations usually took. Of the hundreds of people who expressed an interest in the Programme, less than 10 presented with some difficulties and Dr Ali was one Ms Burbidge personally dealt with that was different.”
“The Tribunal took into consideration the submissions made on Dr Ali's behalf, by Mr Kohanzad, that being untruthful on one matter does not necessarily mean that a witness is untruthful on other matters. Dr Ali's oral and written evidence lacked clarity and was at times difficult to follow. He was respectful but also confused. He presented as a chaotic thinker, unable to prioritise the most significant issues. What seemed to be pivotal in Dr Ali's mind was that if anything, he had over-disclosed in the information he sent to Ms Burbidge on7 June 2020 . He had attached to the Form a list of his conditions and details of his criminal conviction and sentence for dangerous driving and other historical matters that he considered significant.”
“38. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence given at the previous Tribunal hearing and this Tribunal's assessment of the oral evidence of Dr Ali and Ms Burbidge in this hearing. The Tribunal found that the assertion by Dr Ali that he told Ms Burbidge of the potential GMC investigation for the driving conviction in the28 March 2020 telephone conversation was not true. The Tribunal found that the assertions by Dr Ali that Ms Burbidge said 'fuck the GMC' and that any potential GMC investigation would be irrelevant to the BBS Programme, were also untrue. The Tribunal did not accept Dr Ali's evidence that in the28 March 2020 telephone conversation he had informed Ms Burbidge of all those matters set out in paragraph 30 above. If Dr Ali had alerted Ms Burbidge to all those matters, she would not have conducted a Google search, nor would she have sought the advice of Dr Marwick following Dr Ali's email and attachments of June 2020. The Tribunal found Dr Ali's evidence unreliable. 39. Both Ms Burbidge and Dr Marwick's evidence indicated that Dr Ali had not declared any information about the GMC investigation. They were also both in agreement that Dr Ali's case was a difficult one. Where accounts of what happened differed between Ms Burbidge and Dr Ali, the Tribunal preferred the account of Ms Burbidge.”
“Bearing all the evidence in mind, the Tribunal took the view that Dr Ali genuinely knew he was subject to a GMC investigation but purposefully omitted this from the Form to improve his prospects of gaining employment through the BBS Programme as a doctor. He only included details of the conditions on his practice, his conviction and sentence, all of which were publicly available. The omission of the 'ongoing GMC investigation' was significant because it was the only matter he omitted, which was not publicly available.”
“115. The Tribunal were concerned about Dr Ali's references which sought to minimise the dishonesty. In spite of having his appeal dismissed regarding his assertion that there was no formal investigation proceeding at that time, and that his omission was irrelevant because he was applying for a non-clinical position, he persisted with those claims. He accentuated his disclosure of the facts of his criminal conviction, sentence and the conditions then placed upon his registration as illustrative of his 'over-disclosure.' Dr Ali has not to date shown how he has learned from his misconduct. His focus was on the malicious intent of the GMC, MPTS, and Dr Marwick, suggesting his misconduct arose from his being 'entrapped' are all indications that he continues to externalise the blame for his misconduct. 116.Although Dr Ali accepted that dishonesty is serious, he was found to have a low level of insight. The Tribunal found that his misconduct has not been remedied and will not be unless Dr Ali recognises the fundamental problem is his own unwillingness to accept responsibility for his conduct. Ordinarily a person found to be dishonest would learn from their mistake, make admissions and reflect upon it. Dr Ali retains a huge sense of injustice and grievance against the GMC, MPTS. 117.This Tribunal has read in excess of 1,000 pages of documents which Dr Ali has submitted. It included research documents and Case law much of which was irrelevant. Many of the documents are difficult to read. Each Shadow Appraisal has in excess of 100 pages each of which sets out in detail the GPO which Dr Ali has completed and his reflections upon it. The contents however demonstrate little focus on the issues before this Tribunal. Dr Ali's focus continues to be that the GMC is not fit for purpose. Dr Ali repeatedly records his opinion that he was blacklisted and a whistle blower which has prompted the Allegation against him.”
“170.There appears to have been little change to Dr Ali's pre-occupation with perceiving himself as a victim of the GMC's deceitful behaviour towards him and it being unfit for purpose. 171.The Tribunal considered whether there was a risk of repetition. The first Tribunal found the risk to be low. The offence was committed seven years ago and there has been no subsequent serious driving offence reported. Although Dr Ali's account of the circumstances continue to differ markedly from those described by the sentencing Judge, there have been no reports of his loss of temper since December 2018. Dr Ali has never appealed either the conviction or sentence. The risk of repetition calculated by the 2021 Tribunal has not increased. This Tribunal finds the risk of repetition to be low, whilst still asserting Dr AM's poor insight, and failure to fully remediate. 172.The Tribunal noted the virtual courses attended and certificates which Dr Ali has acquired and his shadow appraisals continuing to the present time. He has fulfilled a considerable number of hours of CPD annually, 190 hours in his most recent Shadow Appraisal. They demonstrate that Dr Ali has done as much as he could under the circumstances to maintain his knowledge and keep it up to date. 173.The Tribunal determined that the greatest obstacle to Dr Ali moving on is his lack of insight. He continues to be pre-occupied with the faults he finds in the GMC, the MPTS, the Judges and HMCTS. He persists with references to the victim of his conviction as ‘the other road rage driver' or the 'drunk driver.' He continues to assert that he is suspended as a result of his whistle blowing and a weaponised GMC. In those assertions, Dr Ali is offering a counter truth and counter allegations. These matters collectively prevent him from focussing on the issues concerning the conviction, regarding which he still has a limited insight.”
“215.The Tribunal considered the gravity relating to each matter. The conviction was serious and the sentence reflected that. In the subsequent seven years, Dr Ali has attended before four different tribunals between 2021 and 2025. At each tribunal his insight has been identified as the reason why he has not remediated. The misconduct involving dishonesty was a matter which until today,28 April 2025 . Dr Ali had not accepted, but had provided a number of alternative explanations, locating responsibility elsewhere than himself 216.The Tribunal has accepted throughout that Dr Ali is fully entitled to maintain his innocence. What is more troubling are the counter allegations made by Dr Ali to explain the findings made against him, in particular when it included accusations against institutions such as the GMC and MPTS. 217.The Tribunal accepts Dr Ali's oral evidence that as an elected representative to the BMA, he receives frequent complaints against the GMC, from other doctors. This may have exacerbated his own mistrust of the GMC. 218.The 'application' for Public Interest Disclosure, in reliance on PIDA 1998, is an example of Dr Ali's misdirection. He sought at the start of Stage 3 to apply to the Tribunal to offer him protection from negative treatment or unfair dismissal, such as might occur to a 'whistle-blower' in the context of an employer, and/or before an employment tribunal. Dr Ali submitted before submissions at the sanction stage, that whistleblowing is central to the 'dishonesty' finding. Neither of the two matters which are the subject of this Tribunal's consideration, involve whistle-blowing. Dr Ali himself acknowledges that it is not relevant to the driving conviction. On 28 April Dr Ali submitted that he accepted that he was dishonest in completing a form for the GMC, which is the basis of the misconduct finding. Neither concern whistle-blowing nor employment in a work context where he has either lost his employment or his employer is taking punitive action against him. Both matters concern his voluntary acts, and neither took place in the context of employment. Accordingly, as asserted by Mr Brook on behalf of the GMC, it is not an application relevant to these proceedings.”
“226.The Tribunal considered a suspension to be appropriate if there was an acknowledgement of fault from the doctor and if the behaviours were unlikely to be repeated. it took the view that Dr Ali has found it impossible to move on from his perception that he was victimised by the GMC. The Tribunal delivered its determination on impairment at 09:34 on24 April 2025 . When asked by the LQC at the Sanction stage, whether he had read the Tribunal's Determination on Impairment, having adjourned the previous day at his request, save for two hours, Dr Ali said he'd only been able to skim read it. Offered more time to read it, he declined. 227. The strategies to which Dr Ali refers do not include an account of empathy for anyone else affected by his conviction and/or his dishonesty but focus upon himself… 228.In a single strategy (Dr Ali submitted seven, each covering an A4 page of paper), Dr Ali referred to the GMC as, spiteful (twice), negligent; racist, and deceitful. The 'strategy to minimise the risk of recurrence' which should have focussed on ways for himself to minimise a recurrence of his criminal conviction, were presented as a critique of what he had done and would do to highlight the unfair, unjust and spiteful processes of the GMC. It appeared to the Tribunal to demonstrate Dr Ali's all-consuming fight with the GMC. Dr Ali repeatedly asserted that he had asked for a definition of 'insight' from the GMC but they had chosen not to give him one.”
“233. The Tribunal concluded from the history and evidence that remediation is unlikely to be successful, because of previous unsuccessful attempts to engage Dr Ali in developing insight. This Tribunal found that a further suspension would serve no useful purpose. 234.The Tribunal concluded that a sanction of suspension would undermine the overarching objective because Dr Ali has not demonstrated true insight nor has he convinced the Tribunal that he is capable of addressing the underlying causes for his misconduct.”
“237.The Tribunal considered Dr Ali's conviction and dishonesty to be serious and reckless departures from GMP. It noted that his conviction involved violence by using his vehicle as a weapon. Despite successive tribunals finding that the conviction was remediable and providing Dr Ali with the time whilst suspended to demonstrate remediation, his insight remains limited and therefore he has not remediated. This Tribunal found that his dishonesty in the misconduct was similarly remediable. However, even during this fact finding, Dr Ali resorted to highlighting causative factors previously argued and dismissed by the previous Tribunal and on appeal to the High Court. Whereas Dr Ali is entitled to continue to deny the allegation, it is his counter allegations against others, notably Ms Burbidge and Dr Marwick, as well as the GMC, which displays his inability to develop the necessary insight. Without the necessary insight, the public confidence.in the profession will continue to be eroded. Without the necessary insight, it would not be in the public interest for Dr Ali's registration to continue. 238.It is with some reluctance that the Tribunal has reached this conclusion. Dr Ali is clearly highly regarded in his current work in a GP's practice. Patients need good doctors and it is in the public interest to restore doctors to practice wherever possible. Nonetheless the issue of Dr Ali's insight has been at the forefront of successive tribunal decisions, since he was suspended on5 July 2022 . Sadly, during those intervening years, his recognition of his responsibility, his failings, and his need to demonstrate how he plans to ensure there is no repetition of such dishonesty and aggression, has not been foremost in his presentation to tribunals. This is the insight that is still absent. The Tribunal was not persuaded that Dr Ali had developed sufficient insight whilst his primary focus was to persistently locate blame elsewhere for the events which have brought him before the MPT.”
“Derived from Ghosh are the following points as to the nature and extent of the section 40 appeal and the approach of the appellate court: (i) an unqualified statutory right of appeal by medical practitioners pursuant to section 40 of the 1983 Act; (ii) the jurisdiction of the court is appellate, not supervisory; (iii) the appeal is by way of a rehearing in which the court is fully entitled to substitute its own decision for that of the tribunal; (iv) the appellate court will not defer to the judgment of the tribunal more than is warranted by the circumstances; (v) the appellate court must decide whether the sanction imposed was appropriate and necessary in the public interest or was excessive and disproportionate; (vi) in the latter event, the appellate court should substitute some other penalty or remit the case to the tribunal for reconsideration.”
“The court must exercise its own judgement as to whether the decision was wrong and “it is not sufficient for intervention to turn on the more confined grounds of public law such as rationality” (Cheatle v General Medical Council[2009] EWHC 645 (Admin) at [15]). Although appropriate deference must be paid to the determination of the professional panel the court must not abandon its duty to determine whether the decision was wrong and the degree of deference which is appropriate will depend on the particular circumstances and the particular issue under consideration”
“31. Having read the transcripts and other relevant documents in the appeal, I agree with the Respondent that the following summary contained in the ‘Determination Impairment’ dated22 December 2022 correctly represents the position advanced orally by the Appellant to the Tribunal: (a) the victim’s complaint against the Appellant was malicious and motivated by a claim for compensation to get rich; (b) the victim was a ‘crazy drunk’ who chased after the Appellant in his car; (c) some of the witnesses were not independent but were friends of the victim; (d) one of the witnesses gave evidence at the criminal trial behind a screen because she was frightened of one of the police officers; (e) the Crown Court Judge had misrepresented the facts in his sentencing remarks; (f) the Judge was racist; (h) in pursuing various allegations against him, the Respondent had failed to follow due process, was motivated by racism and lacked insight; (i) the Original Tribunal’s decision to adjourn after going part heard was motivated by malice; (j) the chair of the Original Tribunal did not understand the nature of a dangerous driving conviction; and (k) a number of witnesses against the Appellant were drug dealers. 32. At the subsequent sanction hearing, the Appellant filed further submissions in which he continued to make wide-ranging criticisms of the Respondent and its processes, including alleging that the proceedings taken against him had been motivated by deceit and bad faith.”
“96. I mention one additional matter: rather than raise issues of the type he raised before the Original and Review Tribunals and this court, summarised above, the Appellant might use the time between now and the next review date to demonstrate real insight into his offending and persuade the Review Tribunal that, even though he denies the offence: (a) he accepts that the circumstances relating to his misconduct that were found proved in the Crown Court were serious; (b) he accepts that he and the Review Tribunal are bound by those findings despite the fact that he denies them; (c) he agrees that the Original and Review Tribunals were right in treating them seriously; (d) through insight, application, education, supervision or by other means, he has sufficiently addressed the concerns of the Respondent and the Review Tribunal; (e) he has put in place the necessary strategies to avoid conduct of that type if it arises in the future and to respond in a way that is reasonable and proportionate; and (f) he can demonstrate what those strategies are. If he can do this, it should be possible for the suspension to be lifted, though, of course, this will ultimately be a matter for the Review Tribunal to determine on the material before it and on the oral submissions of the parties.”
“The 'application' for Public Interest Disclosure, in reliance on PIDA 1998, is an example of Dr All's misdirection. He sought at the start of Stage 3 to apply to the Tribunal to offer him protection from negative treatment or unfair dismissal, such as might occur to a 'whistle-blower' in the context of an employer, and/or before an employment tribunal. Dr Ali submitted before submissions at the sanction stage, that whistleblowing is central to the 'dishonesty' finding. Neither of the two matters which are the subject of this Tribunal's consideration, involve whistle-blowing. Dr Ali himself acknowledges that it is not relevant to the driving conviction. On 28 April Dr Ali submitted that he accepted that he was dishonest in completing a form for the GMC, which is the basis of the misconduct finding. Neither concern whistle-blowing nor employment in a work context where he has either lost his employment or his employer is taking punitive action against him. Both matters concern his voluntary acts, and neither took place in the context of employment. Accordingly, as asserted by Mr Brook on behalf of the GMC, it is not an application relevant to these proceedings.”