Dr Raied Haris's (GMC ref. 7017372) sexually motivated conduct

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear General Medical Council,

The GMC appealed against a decision of the MPT that Dr Raied Haris's conduct was not sexually motivated:


In [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) Mrs Justice Foster found that Dr Haris's conduct was sexually motivated:

"65. The Tribunal fell plainly into error in this case. The only reasonable deduction from the facts available to them was that Allegation 4 as to sexual motivation was made out."


Please provide details of all training materials and courses available to tribunal members on the subject sexual motivation. Additionally, can you confirm that the panel who considered Dr Raied's case had received all appropriate training?

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

FOI, General Medical Council

Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.


Unfortunately, due to the current pandemic outbreak we are operating at
reduced capacity. It may therefore take us longer to respond to your
correspondence. We apologise for any inconvenience caused but we’ll get
back to you as soon as we can with a further acknowledgement.


In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website.


Thank you


Information access team

General Medical Council

Email: [GMC request email]

Telephone: 0161 923 6365

Working with doctors Working for patients

The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

"8. Although regarding Patient A the Tribunal found it established that, (in circumstances where it was not clinically indicated and without her informed consent) the Respondent, without gloves, had pulled down her underwear exposing her pubic region, pressed above her pubic area and put a finger on each of the lips of her vagina and pulled them apart, staring at her pubic area, they went on to find that Dr Haris' actions were not sexually motivated.

9. With respect to Patient B, the Tribunal found that the Respondent's actions were not sexually motivated although he had caressed the cheeks of her buttocks for some seconds, inserted his finger between her legs, touching her vagina and, parting the lips of it, had held his finger there for a number of seconds. Further he had fondled her left breast, without gloves. There was no informed consent for the vagina and breast examinations and in no case were such examinations clinically indicated."


FOI, General Medical Council

Dear J Roberts,


Your information request – IR1-2810466976

Thank you for your email dated 22 September, in which you ask for all
training materials and courses available to tribunal members on the
subject of sexual motivation and confirmation that the panel who
considered Dr Raied's case had received all appropriate training. I’m
sorry for the delay in acknowledging your request, this is due to us
receiving a large number of requests.


How we will consider your request

We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). The FOIA gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come
back to you as soon as we can.


Who to contact

Mark Ellen will be handling your request. If you have any questions you
can contact him via email at [1][email address].


Yours sincerely


Lauren Barrowcliffe

Information Access Team Assistant


[email address]

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street


M3 3AW


dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Mark Ellen (0161 923 6347), General Medical Council

1 Atodiad

Dear J Roberts


Reference: IR1-2810466976


Thank you for your e-mail, below. 

I can confirm that MPTS  manage the appointment process of all tribunal
members on a contractual basis. We appoint through open competition
against our published criteria for each role. Further information about
the appointment process can be found on the MPTS website.

On appointment we carry out robust mandatory training and annually
thereafter. All appointed members undergo induction training. The annual
training is thorough and encompasses the decision making process and
equality and diversity and does cover areas such as sexual offences. The
tribunal members you refer to had all undergone this training.

Each tribunal decision is made impartially based on the evidence provided
and tribunal members give reasons for these decisions following
legislation. Please find attached the sanctions guidance, a comprehensive
document tribunal members use where a Doctor’s fitness to practise is
found impaired.

As regards your request for the training material,


The training material relating specifically to sexual offences is not held
separately and the only way to retrieve this would be to manually check
all of the training material that we hold and identify that which relates
to sexual offences.


Due to the extensive material held in respect of our mandatory training,
it would take in the order of 20 minutes per training module per panellist
to attempt to isolate the training relating to sexual offences. As such,
the following FOI exemption applies to this element of your request:


Section 12


I can’t provide the information you have requested. This is because of the
amount of data you’ve asked for and the work that would be involved. Under
the FOIA there’s an exemption for requests where it

would cost the public authority more than £450 to process -  equivalent to
two and half days’ work.


The cost of your request


To estimate the cost we can take into account determining, locating,
retrieving and extracting the information requested. As mentioned above,
we would need to manually check through the details of all the MPTS
Panellist training modules 


I’m sorry that I cannot be more helpful as regards your request. You do
have the right of appeal against my use of the FOI exemption. If you want
to appeal, please set out your grounds for making such an appeal and
e-mail [1][GMC request email]. If such an appeal were unsuccessful, you’d have
the right of making a further appeal – to the Information Commissioner.
Further details about this will be given to you if applicable.   


Kind regards





Mark Ellen

Information Access Team

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester  M3 3AW

Direct Line: 0161 923 6347




dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

Dr Haris appealed the judgment of the Honourable Mrs Justice Foster. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed it:


'37. In reaching its conclusions at [112] the Tribunal ignored the fact that the best evidence as to Dr Haris's motivation was his behaviour. As a matter of common sense, when a patient presents with pain in the upper back in consequence of a fall, there is no reason whatsoever for a doctor to examine her vagina, or to fondle her buttocks or breast. The behaviour was not just capable of being reasonably perceived to be overtly sexual, it was overtly sexual, and there is no other way in which it could have been perceived. A doctor, of all people, would have known that.

57. In summary, Dr Haris's apparent lack of interest in a sexual relationship, and the consistency of his claimed asexuality with his recent diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome, do not begin to explain why he groped a patient's buttocks and breasts and performed physical examinations of her vagina and (on a different occasion) that of another patient, in each case without any clinical justification, without warning or obtaining prior consent, without giving or recording any reason for it at the time, and without using gloves. In the absence of a plausible innocent explanation for what he did, the facts spoke for themselves. A sexual motive was plainly more likely than not; I would go so far as to say that that inference was overwhelming.

58. Foster J was unquestionably right to find that the only rational conclusion available was that the allegation that the conduct was sexually motivated had been proved. In those circumstances she was justified in substituting a finding to that effect.'

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

The link to the MPT decision is broken (the MPTS remove decisions after a year).

Dr Haris is currently registered with a licence to practise.

Information regarding Dr Haris's conditions is available on the GMC's List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP):


'1. He must personally ensure that the GMC is notified of the following information within seven calendar days of the date these conditions become effective: a. of the details of his current post, including: i. his job title ii. his job location iii. his responsible officer (or their nominated deputy) b. the contact details for his employer and any contracting body, including his direct line manager c. of any organisation where he has practising privileges and/or admitting rights d. of any training programmes he is in e. of the organisation on whose medical performers list he is included f. of the contact details of any locum agency or out-of-hours service he is registered with.'

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()


Suspension, 9 months.

'Dr Haris unsuccessfully appealed the outcome of the GMC appeal noted above. The Court of Appeal judgment dismissing his appeal, dated 20 May 2021, can be found here The Tribunal’s decision on sanction at the remittal hearing is set out below.

28. During his oral evidence, Dr Haris expressed what the Tribunal considered to be genuine remorse for his actions and the impact it had on the patients and stated he thought about the “horror” his actions had caused every day. When considering the vulnerabilities of his patients, he stated that he has attended mental health courses and understood he needed to learn how to apply this learning to his consultations.'