Dr Zainab Junaid - minutes

Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing
Date of hearing: 27 October 2014
Name of doctor: Dr Zainab Junaid
Reference Number: 7228378
Registered qualifications: MBBS 2008 Bahria University - Shifa College of
Medicine
Committee Members:
Professor Roger Green – Chair (Medical)
Dr Richard Khoo – Lay
Ms Emma Boothroyd – Lay
Mr Ian Kennedy – Lay
Dr Tim Ward - Medical
Legal Assessor: Mr David Mason
Secretary to the Committee: Mrs Clare Moley
Type of Case: Conviction
Representation:
GMC:
The General Medical Council was represented by Ms Rebecca Eeley, of Counsel,
instructed by GMC Legal.
Doctor:
Dr Junaid was neither present nor represented.
Determination
Ms Eeley,
At the outset of today’s hearing the Committee satisfied itself that notification of the
hearing had been properly served under Rules 15 and 40 of the General Medical
Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules and decided to proceed in Dr Junaid’s absence in
accordance with Rule 31. The Committee considered that the GMC had made all
reasonable efforts to serve Dr Junaid with notice of the hearing, that she had
voluntarily absented herself from these proceedings, and that no benefit would be
1
gained by delay. The Committee considers that it is in the public interest to proceed
today.
The Investigation Committee carefully considered all the material before it including
the submissions made by you on behalf of the GMC. It has accepted the advice of
the Legal Assessor.
The Committee is aware that it must have in mind the GMC’s duty to act in the
public interest, which includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public
confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of
conduct and behaviour. In deciding whether to issue a warning the Committee must
apply the principle of proportionality and balance the interests of the public with
those of the practitioner.
Dr Junaid informed the GMC by way of email dated 04 March 2014 that she had
received a police caution for shoplifting. The date of the caution is 01 March 2014
and states that £127 worth of goods were taken from Tesco in Leicester.
On 10 March 2014, the GMC wrote to Dr Junaid to inform her that the information
that it had received would be considered in accordance with fitness to practise
procedures.
The GMC obtained the police documentation which states that Dr Junaid was
interviewed at the scene of the crime. Dr Junaid admitted the offence and stated
that she had taken the items in an attempt to save money.
A report from the investigating police officer states that Dr Junaid’s husband asked
to make a new statement to the police when they realised that a police caution
would affect Dr Junaid’s application for indefinite leave to stay in the UK. The officer
attended Dr Junaid’s home on 05 March 2014. They told the officer that Dr Junaid
had only admitted to the offence at the scene because she had been advised by the
security staff at the store that admitting to the offence would result in a caution,
whereas denying it would result in her going to jail. Dr Junaid had her son with her
and wanted to be able to go home, so she told the police that she could not afford
the items because it was the only reason she could think of at the time. Dr Juanid’s
husband showed the officer a payslip which indicated that he receives a good salary
and they could afford the items. Dr Junaid told the officer that she in fact left the
store to find her husband and never intended not to pay for the items. She asked for
the caution to be rescinded on this basis.
Following this interview, the officer viewed the store’s CCTV footage of Dr Junaid,
which showed her packing the items into bags whilst still in the store, indicating, in
his opinion that she did not intend to pay for them. It then showed her walking out
of the store and in a direction away from it, which the officer opines does not
support the claim that she was looking for her husband. The officer spoke to the
security staff who denied advising Dr Junaid to admit the offence to avoid being put
in jail. The police decided that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
prospect of a conviction and that the caution would stand.
2
On 03 June 2014, the GMC wrote to Dr Junaid in accordance with Rules 7 and 11 of
the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, and advised her that
the Case Examiners had considered the allegations and the supporting information
and decided that this was a case which they may decide to conclude with a warning.
On 28 June 2014, Dr Juniad replied to the allegations and submitted that a warning
would be disproportionate. She confirmed in an email of 07 July 2014 that she
wished to exercise her right under Rule 11 (3) of the Rules to an oral hearing before
the Investigation Committee.
At today’s hearing, Ms Eeley, on behalf of the GMC you submitted that it was both
appropriate and proportionate to issue Dr Junaid with a warning and referred the
Committee to the GMC’s published guidance on warnings. You stated that it was in
the public interest to issue a warning, and that a warning would serve an important
role in maintaining high standards in the profession. You submitted also that a
warning would act as a deterrent, reminding Dr Junaid that her behaviour had fallen
below the standards expected.
Ms Eeley, you also reminded the Committee that they are not able to go behind the
caution and that the fact that it was accepted at the time of the events is sufficient
proof of the allegations. You submitted that although the doctor has now reneged on
this confession, it appears that this may be for her own benefit only and could
therefore be considered as an aggravating feature. You submitted that the doctor’s
explanation of events are not credible and that her personal circumstances do not
outweigh the public interest. You submitted further that the doctor’s actions
represent a significant departure from Good Medical Practice and are serious enough
for a warning to be an appropriate response.
In the absence of oral submissions on behalf of Dr Junaid the Committee has taken
careful note of the written correspondence submitted by Dr Junaid throughout the
course of the GMC investigation. The Committee notes that Dr Junaid considers the
issuing of a warning to be disproportionate and submits that the incident is not a
true reflection of her character.
Dr Junaid submits that the incident was an accident and she did not intend to steal
the items from Tesco. She submits that she put her shopping items into bags while
walking around the store in order to prevent her three year old son from spoiling
them. She states that her husband was paying for the items and believing he had
left the shop, she went to find him. She did not understand the implications of a
caution at the time of the incident, and being under stress due to personal
circumstances, accepted the course that was recommended to her by Tesco staff.
She submits further that she is financially stable and would not risk stealing in order
to save a small amount of money.
Dr Junaid submits that a warning on her registration would have a disproportionate
effect on her personal life and career. She asks the Committee to consider a ruling
3
from the Supreme Court which states that minor convictions and cautions should not
be disclosed on criminal record checks.
The Committee has considered all the information before it, and has given careful
consideration to the mitigation presented by Dr Junaid. It notes her certificate of
good standing from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and course certificates.
It also notes the comments from Dr Junaid’s husband.
The Committee has noted the reference to the case of Bolton v the Law Society
[1994] 2 All ER 486 as directed by you Ms Eeley where it is said by Sir Thomas
Bingham MR ‘The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortune of
any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is
a part of the price.’
The Committee notes that Dr Junaid accepted the caution for theft and it is unable
to go behind that. It also notes that the police reinvestigated the circumstances of
the caution but were still of the opinion that a caution was an appropriate response.
It has considered the doctor’s varied explanations at different times and is unable to
decide which is most accurate. Whatever the explanation for what happened
however, the Committee considers that the caution for theft amounts to a significant
departure from Good Medical Practice, falling just short of a finding of impairment. It
considers that Dr Junaid has demonstrated limited insight into her actions. The
Committee has considered proportionality and considers that a warning would be an
appropriate and proportionate response. As such, the Committee considers that Dr
Junaid’s actions do meet the threshold for the issuing of a warning.
It has therefore determined to issue Dr Junaid with the following warning:
On 1 March 2014 you received a caution for theft from a shop.
This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing
the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards
are set out in Good Medical Practice and associated guidance. In this case,
paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice (2013) is particularly relevant:
‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the
public’s trust in the profession.’
Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on your
registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning.
This warning will be published on the List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP)
for a period of five years and will be disclosed to any person enquiring about your
fitness to practise history. After five years, the warning will cease to be published on
LRMP however it will be kept on record and disclosed to employers on request.
Dr Junaid will be notified of this decision, in writing, in the next two working days.
4
That concludes the determination of the Investigation Committee in this case.
5

Download Report