In this case, Lateef v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 2743 (Admin), Dr Lateef appealed against the decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) dated 18 January 2022, by which the Tribunal ordered his erasure from the register of medical practitioners.
A previous decision by the Tribunal, on 8 March 2018, had directed that Dr Lateef’s registration be suspended for six months. That decision arose out of findings in conjunction with a road traffic collision, culminating in a conviction of Dr Lateef of dangerous driving, the Tribunal findings being that Dr Lateef had made false representations (a) to the General Medical Council and others to the effect that nobody had been injured in the accident and (b) to the Magistrates’ Court that he had been unemployed at the time.
It was what happened in April 2018 which was at the heart of the Tribunal decision, against which Dr Lateef now appeals. The Tribunal found that, having paid a third party Mr Segun Popoola (described in the proceedings, and below, as “Mr A”) to update his CV with a view to obtaining employment in the area of financial control (anti-money laundering), the updated CV which Mr A provided – to Dr Lateef’s knowledge – contained a fabricated career history in financial control; and it was in those circumstances that Dr Lateef knowingly submitted the false updated CV to an employment agency (Emponics). The Tribunal found that in doing this, Dr Lateef acted dishonestly. That was the heart of the case. The documentary evidence undeniably demonstrated that at 13:11 on 19 April 2018 a job-seeking email was sent to Emponics from Dr Lateef’s email address. At 20:13 on 19 April 2018, Emponics replied, pointing out that Dr Lateef had not included his CV. The response on the following day 20 April 2018 at 17:09 attached the bogus CV and a personal overview with content based on the bogus CV.
In defence, Dr Lateef’s said that he had not submitted the false updated CV. He said “his email address must have been “hacked”; that another person had sent the false CV”.
Dr Lateef’s explanation changed before the MPT. In a supplementary witness statement he explained:
“He had in April 2021 had a telephone conversation with his late wife’s spiritual adviser: Mr Olayinka. He had learned from that conversation that his late wife, unknown to him, and at a time when she was suffering with the cancer from which she died in October 2018, had accessed his email address, had accessed the false CV, and had sent the communications with Emponics, including the false CV.”
The MPT however found that it had been Dr Lateef, and not his late wife, who had sent the false CV and the false personal overview to Emponics on 20 April 2018.
Mr Justice Fordham however rejected the entirety of Dr Lateef’s grounds of appeal saying:
“In none of the grounds of appeal, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, is there any basis for this Court – as an appellate court – concluding that the Tribunal’s decision was in any respect wrong, or unjust for serious procedural or other irregularity. This was, and is, a very clear case. The Tribunal’s reasoned conclusions in light of the evidence are fully and objectively justified; and there was no procedural unfairness. In those circumstances, and for those reasons, the appeal is dismissed. “
He also went on to refuse permission for an appeal which, in his judgment, would have no realistic prospect of success, he commented.
Recent Comments