Abdulla, Ahmed Radwan Kaid2076809 14-12-2012.pdf - General ...

DETERMINATION ON FACT"THE CHAIRMAN: Ahmed Radwan Kaid Abdulla was born on 17 April 1988 inSana’a in the Yemen. At the age of about six he moved, with his parents, to theUnited Kingdom and settled in Cardiff. He comes from a medical family; both of hisparents are doctors, his brother is a doctor. He attended Cardiff University where hestudied pharmacy. He obtained a Master in Pharmacy degree, which involvedcompleting a year studying at North Carolina University. He did his pre-registrationtraining in Porthcawl, Wales, qualifying as a pharmacist and first registering with theGeneral Pharmaceutical Council on 25 July 2011.Following qualification he obtained employment as a relief pharmacist at Boots inWest Wales.He has never previously appeared before a disciplinary committee but as a result ofevents, which are said to have occurred on 4 September 2011, he now faces anallegation that his fitness to practise is impaired. That impairment is said to arisebecause of both misconduct and adverse mental or physical health.The full particulars of the allegation are as follows:"That being first registered as pharmacist on 25 July 2011;1. On 4 September 2011, you engaged in unwanted sexual contact withMiss A in that you:i) intentionally removed the clothing of Miss A for the purpose ofengaging in sexual activity; and/orii)attempted to penetrate the vagina of Miss A; and/oriii) penetrated the vagina of Miss A.2. The conduct described above occurred when Miss A was asleep andyou

(a) knew or(b) ought to have known that Miss A was sleeping.3. Your actions described in 1 and 2 above were;i) inappropriate; and/orii)sexually motivated; and/oriii)contrary to principle 6.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethicsand Performance.4. On or about 17 October 2010 you were found by the police to be inpossession of an unknown quantity of Cannabis, a Class B controlled drug foryour own personal use and were issued with a street warning.5. On or before 4 September 2011 you supplied an unknown quantity ofAndean Coca Leaf, a Class A controlled drug, to YMO.6. On or before 4 September 2011 you consumed an unknown quantity ofAndean Coca Leaf, a Class A controlled drug.7. On or before 4 September 2011 you supplied an unknown quantity ofCocaine, a Class A controlled drug, to YMO; or8. On or before 4 September 2011 you supplied an unknown quantity of anunknown controlled drug, to YMO without a valid prescription.9. On or before 9 September 2011, you consumed Cocaine, a Class Acontrolled drug; or10. On or before 8 September 2011, you consumed an unknown quantity ofan unknown controlled drug.

11. On or before 9 September 2011, you consumed Cannabis, a Class Bcontrolled drug.12. On or before 9 September 2011, you consumed Khat.13. Your actions described in 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 above were:i) inappropriate; and/orii) contrary to section 4 and/or 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971;and/oriii) contrary to section 67 of the Medicines Act 1968; and/oriv) contrary to principle, 2.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics andPerformance; and/orv) contrary to principle 6.2 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics andPerformance; and/orvi) contrary to principle 6.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics andPerformance.14. Your actions described in 12 above were:i) inappropriate; and/orii) contrary to principle 6.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethicsand Performance.By reason of the matters set out above, individually or cumulatively, yourfitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.15. On 21 October 2012 a medical report was prepared XXXXXXXX[Redacted] which concluded that you are suffering from a medical condition, thenature of which is set out in Schedule 1.

Schedule 1(a) XXXXXXXXXXXXX [Redacted](b) XXXXXXXXXXXXX [Redacted]By reason of the matters set out above, individually or cumulatively, yourfitness to practise is impaired because of your adverse physical or mentalhealth."Section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides for the restriction of productionand supply of controlled drugs, and Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971provides for the restriction of possession of controlled drugs.Principle 2.1 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance provides that aRegistrant must consider and act in the best interests of individual patients and thepublic.Principle 6.2 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance provides that aRegistrant should not abuse his professional position or exploit the vulnerability orlack of knowledge of others.Principle 6.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance provides that aRegistrant must meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct.The Council withdrew the assertion that any of Mr Abdulla’s actions were contrary toSection 67 of the Medicines Act 1968At the commencement of the hearing, when the allegations were put to Mr Abdulla, hemade the following admissions:That on or about 17 October 2010 he was found by the police to be inpossession of an unknown quantity of Cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, forhis own personal use and that he was issued with a street warning.

That on or before 4 September 2011 he supplied an unknown quantity ofAndean Coca Leaf, a Class A controlled drug, to YMO.That on or before 4 September 2011 he consumed an unknown quantity ofAndean Coca Leaf, a Class A controlled drug.That on or before 9 September 2011 he consumed Cannabis, a Class Bcontrolled drug.That on or before 9 September 2011 he consumed Khat.That XXXXXX [Redacted] had concluded that he was suffering from amedical condition, the nature of which was set out in Schedule 1XXXXXXXXX [Redacted]In accordance with Rule 31(6) of the General Pharmaceutical Council (Fitness toPractise and Disqualification etc. Rules) Order of Council 2010 the Committee foundthat such facts had been proved.The other matters were not admitted by him.It therefore fell to the Committee to make factual determinations in respect of allmatters not admitted and to consider the circumstances of those matters in respect ofwhich there were admissions.Insofar as they are not admitted, the Council bears the burden of establishing the facts.The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.The Committee was referred to the case of In re D [2008] UKHL 33. In that caseLord Carswell said this [at paragraph 28]:

“…in some contexts a court or tribunal has to look at the facts more criticallyor more anxiously than in others before it can be satisfied to the requisitestandard. The standard itself is, however, finite and unvarying. Situationswhich make such heightened examination necessary may be the inherentunlikelihood of the occurrence taking place...the seriousness of the allegationto be proved or, in some cases, the consequences which could follow fromacceptance of proof of the relevant fact. The seriousness of the allegationrequires no elaboration: a tribunal of fact will look closely into the factsgrounding an allegation of fraud before accepting that it has been established.The seriousness of consequences is another facet of the same proposition: if itis alleged that a bank manager has committed a minor peculation, that couldentail very serious consequences for his career, so making it the less likely thathe would risk doing such a thing. These are all matters of ordinaryexperience, requiring the application of good sense on the part of those whohave to decide such issues. They do not require a different standard of proofor a specially cogent standard of evidence, merely appropriately carefulconsideration by the tribunal before it is satisfied of the matter which has to beestablished.”In this case Mr Abdulla does not have a completely unblemished record, as heaccepted a street warning for possession of cannabis in 2010, but he has never beensaid to have committed any offences of sexual misconduct or serious drugs offences.In those circumstances the Committee proceeded on the basis that it was inherentlyunlikely that he, a professional man with a good educational background and from arespected family of professionals, would have acted in the way alleged. TheCommittee recognised that it would need to look at the evidence anxiously andcritically before it could find otherwise.At approximately 14.50 hours on Monday 5 September 2011 Miss A attended theCarmarthen Police Station. She was seen by Police Constable Sally Bailey-Williams.That officer, when informed of the nature of the complaint, completed a SeriousSexual Assault Investigation Booklet, which is the standard practice. Her evidence

was that she asked Miss A what happened, and that with very little prompting Miss Agave her account, which the Officer recorded in the booklet.That account was as follows:“On Saturday, 3 September 2011 I went out in the evening with my friends toSwansea. By the end of the night I had had a lot of alcohol to drink and myfriends wanted to go home but I wanted to stay out. I stayed out until about 4am and then went out onto Wind Street.I saw a male that I knew called Yousif Osman who I think is about 22 yearsold and he said I could stay at his. I tried to call my friends but I couldn't gethold of them so I went back with Yousif. I got into a navy coloured car, Ithink it was a Honda Civic but I'm not sure. I can't remember where we got inthe car but I know we walked to McDonald's first which is by the big fountain.I had a big mac meal. I cannot recall where I got into the car but I know that Iwas sat in the back seat behind the passenger. Yousif was sat next to me andthere was also a male driving and the male front passenger. I did not knowthese males.We arrived at the house, which had a garden and patio slabs and Yousif andthe passenger got out and went to the house. Myself and the driver got out andwent into the house.I sat down in the lounge and the male who had been sat in the front passengerseat asked me if I wanted to smoke but I said no. Yousif asked me if I wantedto go to bed and I said yes. He showed me upstairs to a bedroom which wasthe first room on the left at the back of the house and said I could sleep inthere. I knew this wasn't Yousif’s house as the house belonged to VK [in factit was ‘BK’]. I took my earrings out and put them on the floor. I then got intothe double bed, which had a red duvet. In fact the whole house was done out in

an Indian style. Yousif told me he was going downstairs for a smoke so Iwent to sleep. I was wearing the clothing I had worn out, in bed.I don't know how long I was sleeping for but I suddenly woke up and a malewas lying on top of me and having sex with me, his penis was in my vagina. Ipushed him off me. I noticed then that I only had my bra on. I then lookedout of the corner of my eye and could see Yousif stood there. Yousif said“What you doing!” The male who had been lying on top of me walked out.Yousif got into the bed and said “Sorry about him”. I got up and put myclothes on. He also asked if I thought that it was him. The male who lay ontop of me was about 5 ft 8ins in height, slim build Asian, he had short blackhair.When I was putting my clothes on he came to the door and he asked me if Iwas bringing my friends. He had white boxer shorts on then and he had hispenis in his hand and he was playing with himself. I walked out anddownstairs and out of the front door. I then turned right and went down theslight decline, I walked to a T-junction and I turned right. I then walked to aset of traffic lights, and I know that road takes you to Uplands where theNatWest bank is. I carried on walking and flagged a white taxi with a greensticker on and they took me to NatWest bank and then [my friend’s] house inMansel Street, Uplands. My other friend answered the door and I told herwhat had happened. I didn't recognise the male but I think it may have beenthe driver of the vehicle that I was in, by the male I mean the male who hadsex with me. Yousif is a black male, about 5 ft 7in in height, large build.Both the driver and the front seat passenger were Asian males. The passengerwas very thin, black, short hair 5 ft 7in in height. The driver was wearing anavy zip up sweater, white stripes on arms. All of them were wearing darkclothing. I think the passenger had glasses on. I left my mobile at the address.”Miss A was subsequently interviewed twice in detail by a trained officer, thoseinterviews being recorded on video. In those interviews she confirmed the allegationshe had initially made and provided some additional detail. She confirmed that shehad drunk a bottle of wine before going to town and felt a “little tipsy”. She described

drinking more in town and she became quite drunk, but said that she was aware ofwhat was going on. She said that after she met Yousif Osman she had gone to a carbut could not remember how she got in but she was sitting in the back seat behind thepassenger. The car stopped outside the Monkey Bar before it drove off to the house.She confirmed that she had told a number of her friends about the incident.The allegation made by Miss A was that it was an unknown person who she haddiscovered having sex with her. She was taken by police officers to try to identify thehouse where the alleged incident occurred, and although she directed them to the correctarea she could not identify the specific house.Initially she said that she thought that it might have been the driver (of the Honda Civic)who was responsible. She had been taken to the house by two men she did not know,and Mr Osman. She was not aware that the driver and passenger had left the house, northat Mr Abdulla had come home, as she was upstairs asleep at the time. The Committeefound, in those circumstances, that it was not unreasonable that she initially said to thepolice that it might have been the driver.She did, however, know Mr Osman, and so it was he that the police first located andarrested on suspicion of being involved in the alleged rape.Mr Osman was arrested at 7:50 on the morning of Wednesday 7 September 2011. Hewas cautioned and replied “Yeah, I was in the house at the time but I didn’t doanything”. He was asked what clothing he was wearing and after handing over theclothes said “[She] hasn’t said I did anything to her has she?”He then volunteered the following information: “It was BK’s house, he is Ahmed apharmacist in Neath. Hisham was the driver of the car on the night – I don’t know thename of the front passenger”. He was reminded of the caution after which hevolunteered, “We were the only ones in the house [Miss A] and I were laying in bedtogether but not doing anything. I asked [Miss A] to use her phone and I went to BK’sroom – he was laying in the bed smashed, he said “Let’s get some girls”. I told him myfriend is in bed next door and don’t go in there. I went to the bathroom and I could seemovement in the bed when I came back. I was only a metre from the bed when I heard[Miss A saying] “Whoa…whoa” [written as “Wow...wow”] and she pulled the quilt

down off her head. I then saw BK sliding out the bottom of the bed, he had a vest andboxers on. I said, “What the fuck are you doing”. He walked off out of the room. I gotback into bed with [Miss A] but I had BK’s brother’s grey tracksuit bottoms on. Miss Aleft the house and I felt really bad about what had happened”.He was interviewed under caution on four occasions, these being between 17:03 and17:47; 17:50 and 18:33; 18:35 and 19:18 and 19:25 and 20:11 on 7 September 2011.He was detained in custody overnight. At 20:07 on Thursday 8 September it wasnoted that he had not been implicated by Mr Abdulla and it was decided that heshould be released without charge. He was then released at 20:13 on that date.Following his release from custody he made a lengthy witness statement. The witnessstatement is shown to have been taken at 20:30 and is dated 8 September 2011. Thefront sheet of the statement, which records the time, and every page of the statementhas been signed by Mr Osman. In that witness statement Mr Osman alleged that MrAbdulla had supplied to him some cocaine and that they had both taken cocaine, inthe course of the evening.On the basis of the evidence provided by Mr Osman, Mr Abdulla was arrested on 8September 2011, when he attended the police station by mutual agreement. He wasinterviewed firstly at 12:55, and then a number of times subsequently in the presenceof his solicitor. He denied the allegation of rape throughout his interviews, statingthat there had been no sexual contact between him and Miss A. He gave detail of hismovements on the Saturday night and Sunday morning. He said that he had picked upYousif in his car, which is a Volkswagen Polo. They had bought some vodka andgone back to his house where they had met some other friends. He and Yousif hadconsumed some of the vodka and they had then gone into Swansea, leaving at about11:15 pm. He said that he felt the effects of alcohol “a little bit”. One of his friends,Hisham, had given him and Yousif a lift into town in Hisham’s Honda Civic. He saidthat Yousif was coming back to his house with him because he had the keys to thehouse. Whilst in Swansea he and Yousif had become separated. He had gone to a barcalled the Monkey Bar. He consumed some more alcohol in the course of theevening. He said that he had some coca sweets, which his brother had brought back

from a recent visit to Peru. He said that his brother had brought back some cocainetea and some coca sweets which had contained an extract but which were legal here.He said that he had not taken cocaine in the Revolution, but that he gave Yousif somewhite bits which were on the coca leaves but which was not cocaine. He said that hetold Yousif that it was cocaine but it wasn’t.He said that he later met up with his friends who wanted to go home, but he did not ashe wanted to eat. In the course of the evening he met a student who he had notpreviously known and they went to eat together. He said that he had not left open awindow at his parents’ house so that his friends could get into the house.He eventually arrived home about 6:00 am, and went into the house through the frontentrance. He took off his shoes, drank a glass of water, checked that all of the doorswere locked before going to bed. He went upstairs and saw Yousif in his room on aphone. They spoke and he went into his brother’s room because he thought thatYousif was sleeping in his room. He said that Yousif was just wearing boxer shorts,and that he did not see him wearing grey jogging bottoms. He then went into hisbrother’s room and jumped into bed fully clothed. It was dark in the room but hecould see the duvet, which just looked normal. He pulled up the duvet, got inside andfelt that there was someone there which he thought may be one of the boys. He didnot know there was a girl there. He said that the next thing that happened was that shecame up to him and he thought that she was thinking he was Yousif. He said that fiveseconds later Yousif come into the room and said, “What the fuck’s going on?” Shesaid something like, “Whoa, whoa…”. He said he did not know what the girl said buthe told her to get out of the house. The girl then told him to fuck off and she left. Thewhole thing lasted about five seconds.He told the police that Yousif Osman had later told him that he [Yousif Osman] hadhad sex with the girl earlier that morning. Mr Abdulla denied that he said, “Let’s goand get some girls”. He said that the girl was fully clothed at the time. He denied thathe had removed any of her clothing. He denied that he had an erection when he wasin bed with her.

He said that he could not remember what underwear he was wearing that night butthought that they were white, white with stripes or white with checked lines. He saidthat he would provide every single pair so they could be tested.Mr Osman provided a second witness statement dated 12 September 2011, when hetold the investigating officers that he had bragged to a number of young males whohad been gathered at Mr Abdulla’s house the day following the incident that he hadhad consensual sex with Miss A. He said, however, that it was not true that they hadhad sexual intercourse.The police obtained further evidence which they considered to be relevant andsupportive of the allegation, and which is discussed below; and Mr Abdulla wascharged with an offence of rape. Mr Osman was treated as a prosecution witness.Mr Abdulla stood trial at the Crown Court sitting at Swansea between 16-24 April2012. At the conclusion of the trial he was acquitted of the charge.Notwithstanding his acquittal he faced, before this Committee, the allegations ofsexual misconduct set out above based upon the same allegations of Miss A.As Langstaff J, confirmed in the case of Dr Para Bhatt v General Medical Council[2011] EWHC 783 (Admin ):“…given that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings (regulation to maintainproper standards in the profession in the best interest of the public and theprofession) is different from that served by the criminal courts; that the standardof proof is significantly different, such that there is no inconsistency betweenacquittal by a jury and a finding by a disciplinary panel that allegations areproved (as there might often have been at a time when the standard was thesame); that evidence admissible before a disciplinary tribunal may differ in thatdifferent rules of evidence are likely to apply, and in part because judicialdiscretions may well be differently exercised—as Simon Brown LJ said [in thecase of R (Redgrave) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis] generally less

strictly in the disciplinary context where at least the accused's liberty is not atstake.”For reasons which are not relevant for our present considerations, Mr Abdulla did notface any criminal charges in relation to the drug allegations, which form the second limbof the misconduct allegations, which are before this Committee.At the proceedings before the Committee, Mr Abdulla was not legally represented butappeared in person.Rule 44(4) provides that where (a) there is an allegation against a person concerned of asexual nature; (b) a witness is the alleged victim; and (c) the person concerned is notrepresented, the person concerned is not allowed to cross-examine the witness directly inperson.Rule 44(5) provides that in the circumstances set out in paragraph (4), any questioning ofthe witness is to be undertaken by such person as the Committee considers appropriate.In those circumstances the Council appointed Ms Bex, a suitably experienced barrister,to undertake the cross-examination of Miss A on behalf of Mr Abdulla. That was MsBex’s only role in the proceedings and she was not acting as a representative of MrAbdulla.In support of its allegations the Council called a number of witnesses who gave oralevidence. These were: Miss A, Police Constable Bailey-Williams, Miss B (a friend ofMiss A), Detective Constable Davies, Detective Sergeant Bainbridge, Mrs ErikaFowler, Miss Mary Carr, Dr Susan Pope, Mrs Denise Stanworth, Mr Michael Scott-Ham, Dr L R, and Mr Yousif Osman (also known as Fat Joe).A number of statements were, by agreement, read to the Committee. These were: MrC (boyfriend of Miss A), Miss D (another friend of Miss A), Detective ConstableHarry, Mr Mark Lewis, Detective Constable Landeg, Mr Neal Geoffrey Harding, MrMark Young, Ms Clare Fencott, Ms Ria Jones, Mr Delash Patel, Mr Ronald WilliamBird, Mr Alexander James McFetrich, Ms Helen Lewis, and Ms Martha Pawluczyk.

The Committee was provided with a considerable number of documents whichincluded the transcripts of the evidence of the witnesses who were called to giveevidence at the Crown Court and the transcript of the trial judge’s summing up to thejury. Every document provided was carefully considered, although each is notindividually referred to in this determination.CCTV footage from a number of cameras located in and around the centre of Swanseaon 3 and 4 September 2011 was also played to the Committee.Mr Abdulla gave oral evidence and, by agreement, read to the Committee witnessstatements which had been taken by the police from Hashem Almeshhedani, ZohebHaider and Ibrahim Sultan, and which had formed part of the unused material in theprosecution of Mr Abdulla. There was a further statement which had been taken bythe police from Saran Akhtar. That statement had never been signed. It therefore didnot comply with the requirements of Rule 24(3) of the Rules and so could not beconsidered as a witness statement. The Council, however, took no objection to theadmission of the statement as a document. There was also a witness statement whichMr Abdulla had obtained from Zubair Wani. Finally there were testimonials fromProfessor Tariq Butt and Mohsen Elbeltagi, an Imam at Swansea University, and a DrP Ali, all of which spoke highly of Mr Abdulla’s character. The Council raised noobjection to their admission into evidence at the fact finding stage of the proceedings,given that at the heart of the case was the issue of Mr Abdulla’s credibility.Miss A’s evidence in-chief was given by way of a video recording of her interviewsby the police. That was in accordance with a previous Case Management Directionapplying the provisions of Rule 44, which allows for the use of such pre-recordedevidence provided always that the witness is present at the hearing for crossexaminationand questioning. That evidence was the same as had been played at theCrown Court. She was cross-examined on her evidence at the Crown Court and theCommittee considered the transcript of that cross-examination. She was further crossexaminedbefore the Committee.Miss A accepted that her behaviour on, and recollection of the events of 3 and 4September, would have been affected by her consumption of alcohol. In addition, at

that time she was working in two jobs, over long hours, which, she said, left herfeeling “shattered”. There were certain parts of the evening which she could notrecall at all and other parts about which her recollection was hazy. However theCommittee found that she was clearly not in such a state that she could remembernothing. As examples, she recalled going for a Big Mac meal at McDonalds;although she could not recall getting into the Honda Civic in which she travelled toMr Abdulla’s house, she correctly recalled the make of the car and sitting in it outsidethe Monkey Bar, a fact confirmed by the CCTV evidence; she recalled makingtelephone calls to two of her friends in the early hours of the morning which wasconfirmed by telephone logs provided to the Committee. She was able to recallconsiderable detail about the interior of Mr Abdulla’s house which was laterconfirmed.The Committee bore in mind that its task is to consider whether her core allegationsare true. It is not surprising that, for all of the witnesses, there is some inconsistencyand confusion about details of varying importance.The Committee had the benefit of observing Miss A in person and hearing herrespond to questions put to her in cross-examination. They found that she respondedto all of the questions in a straightforward and frank manner and did not seek toembellish her narrative of the events. Much of the cross-examination carried animplication that her actions in not going home with her friends, but instead staying inthe centre of Swansea alone and then agreeing to go back to Mr Abdulla’s house withMr Osman, were in some way questionable. The Committee did not find anything inher behaviour or motivation which undermined her credibility as a witness. Therewas certainly nothing in her behaviour or motivation which cast doubt upon the coreof her allegation against Mr Abdulla.There was no cogent evidence from any source which would support a suggestion thatshe had any reason to invent a claim that she was subject to unwanted sexual contactwith any person, nor to falsely accuse Mr Abdulla (who was unknown to her andwhose name she did not even know) of unwanted sexual contact. Mr Abdullasubmitted that it was not credible that Miss A’s clothing could be removed withouther waking. The clothing was produced as an exhibit, and given the nature of the

Yousif ‘fatjoe’ Osman : I will..watta fuck it was so confusing man I was on urfone 4 a while if u can remember ‘ went outside I came back 2 see u both inbed I was as shock as u were 1 st of all…plus hw will I get into trouble as if Itried anything with u even tho I was laying nxt 2 u most of the night until wahappened…if u think I had anything to do with what happened I’m happy 2 go2 da station with u…I felt reli bad just 2 let u knw I felt reli small andspeechless u reli think I wanted that 2 happen? when do u want ur fone."The Committee found the questions, which Miss A posed during the course of thoseexchanges, supportive of her account of the incident.The statements of Miss A’s boyfriend and a friend who she had been out with duringthe earlier part of Saturday night were read to the Committee. Another friend whohad been out with Miss A that night attended the hearing and gave oral evidence. Thestatements of all three witness confirmed that Miss A had disclosed to them detail ofher allegation. The witness Miss B had known Miss A for a number of years. Shesaid that when Miss A arrived at the flat at which they were staying, she saw that shewas crying. When she saw that, she realised something was wrong and asked her,“What’s up,” and Miss A replied “Nothing”. She said that she didn’t want to push herto tell her if she wasn’t ready to tell her. She said that it was probably 10, 15 minutesbefore she told her, and afterwards Miss A said, “Promise me you won’t tell anyone”.When they were later travelling back to their home town from Swansea Miss B toldMiss A that she should report what had happened. She said that Miss A seemed quitefrustrated at the whole situation and she just kept nodding, but she didn’t reply to thefact that Miss B had said she should report it. Miss B said that Miss A seemed quitefrustrated or angry.The Committee found that Miss B gave her evidence in a straightforward manner andthat she was a credible witness.The Committee accepted that Miss A’s recent complaints to her friends and herdemeanour when they were made are supportive of her evidence, and that her reasonfor delaying contacting the police is credible.

Supported by her friends and because she was unable to concentrate at work on theMonday morning she resolved to report the matter to the police. The Committeefound her evidence credible in that regard.The Committee concluded that Miss A was a wholly credible witness upon whoseevidence it could rely.It was submitted on behalf of the Council that support for Miss A’s allegations couldbe found in the evidence of Mr Osman. It will be recalled that when he was arrestedhe immediately, and without detailed questioning, gave a version of events that waslargely consistent with the allegations of Miss A.Mr Osman was described by Miss Foster, in her opening statement, as “in somerespects an unattractive witness” as he had boasted to a number of young men whowere gathered at the house of Mr Abdulla the morning after the alleged incident thathe had had consensual sexual intercourse with Miss A the previous night. He told thepolice that although he had boasted that he had sex with Miss A it was not true that hehad. Miss A denies that there was any intimate contact, and moreover the scientificevidence does not indicate that there was any intimate contact between them.Mr Osman made a statement to the police, dated 8 September 2012, in which it wasindicated it was “…true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowingthat, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfullystated in it anything, which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.”He subsequently indicated that parts of that statement were inaccurate.Mr Osman was, on 17 April 2012, called by the prosecution to give evidence at theCrown Court hearing. The Committee were provided with a transcript of hisevidence. That evidence differed significantly from the evidence contained in thestatement, which had been provided to the police. In particular in his writtenstatement he had said that he saw Mr Abdulla in the bedroom with Miss A, and thatMr Abdulla was naked from the waist down and had an erection. In his oral evidencehe said that Mr Abdulla was fully clothed. Such a stark contrast in a version of events

could not arise as a result of a mistake, and can only lead to the conclusion that MrOsman was deliberately not being truthful.Mr Osman made two further statements, both dated 13 November 2012. These werestatements which were taken specifically for the purpose of these Fitness to Practiseproceedings. These statements both bore the same declarations of truth as the one setout above. In the first of those statements he indicated that the transcript of the firststatement that he had provided to the police contained a number of inaccuracies,which he then went on to detail. The inaccuracies had been redacted from the typedversion of the statement provided to the Committee. In the second statement of thesame date he confirmed that the statement, which he had made to the police (dated 12September 2011), was accurate and that it was the evidence he would adopt in theproceedings.Before the Committee, having read out the four statements which he had made, MrOsman indicated that so far as the allegation relating to the alleged sexual misconductof Mr Abdulla was concerned his statements were not true. He said that a lot of it wasfabricated and the statements about the incident of the rape were not true. Heindicated that he had not appreciated that he was being called to give evidence aboutthe alleged sexual misconduct of Mr Abdulla. The Committee did not accept thatexplanation as being credible.The Committee further noted that he had signed those statements a few weeks beforethe hearing, yet was now disowning their content.An application was made by Miss Foster to treat Mr Osman as a hostile witness.That application was not opposed by Mr Abdulla.The Committee received and accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser.The Committee concluded that Mr Osman was shown by his almost completedisowning of his recent witness statements, provided to the Council for the purpose ofthese proceedings, to be adverse or hostile to the Council’s case. He was not sayingthat there were some differences in his statements which he wished to correct, but that

the statements were in a large part fabricated. That is clearly damaging to theCouncil’s case. The Committee considered that, given the requirement for theCommittee to make due inquiry into the allegations before us, the Council should bepermitted to cross-examine Mr Osman. Mr Osman did not dispute that he made thestatements which he now says are fabricated.Mr Osman was then cross-examined by Miss Foster. He proceeded to give evidencethat was largely supportive of Mr Abdulla and which sought to undermine Miss A.For the first time he stated that he had taken Miss A back to the house with a sexualmotivation, something which he had denied at the Crown Court, and that he had hadsexual intercourse with her on a previous occasion, approximately two years earlier.This was completely contrary to his previous assertions that he had no such intentionswhen at the house. It was also contrary to the evidence of Miss A, which was thattheir relationship was as friends and was platonic.Amongst the documentation produced was a message sent from his Facebook profileto Miss A, dated 9 September 2011, which reads, “why did you lie”. In his witnessstatement Mr Osman had said that he did not send that message, and indeed afterseeing it sent a message to Miss A stating, “I didn’t send this”. A further messagewas sent from his Facebook profile to Miss A which said, "Hore". He stated that hedid not send that message. He provided an explanation as to how someone else mighthave gained access to his Facebook account. He now said that he did send themessages “why did you lie” and “Hore”.He now says that nothing at all improper happened in the bedroom involving MrAbdulla. It would follow from that that he was prepared to give a detailed statementagainst his friend making a false accusation of a most serious nature, rather than tellthe truth which was, according to him, that there was no indecency.The Committee, assessing the evidence set out above, found Mr Osman to be a whollyunreliable witness whose evidence could not be relied upon. Where there was aconflict between the evidence of Miss A and that of Mr Osman the Committeepreferred the evidence of Miss A.

The Committee viewed footage of various recordings from CCTV cameras, which arelocated in the Swansea City centre. This was footage, which had not been played atthe Crown Court.In particular, footage was captured from in and around a Spar shop taken very shortlybefore Mr Abdulla was taken home. He is with the man he says is a student whom hemet for the first time that night. They purchased a small bottle of Jack Daniels and asoft drink and Mr Abdulla consumes some of the alcohol. Mr Abdulla approachestwo girls inside the shop and a girl outside of the shop who is with a group of herfriends. There is no sound to the recording so it is not possible to hear what is said,but Mr Abdullah’s approaches are clearly not welcome but he nevertheless persists.He later turns and appears to speak to a fourth girl. Ms Foster submits that his mannerwas importunate and inappropriate, and the Committee found that to be a reasonableinference to be drawn. The Committee found that it is certainly the case that the MrAbdulla shown on the CCTV is very different in demeanour from the Mr Abdullawho appeared before the Committee. Mr Abdulla’s actions towards the girls on theCCTV that night is not consistent with his claim that upon realising he had got intobed with a girl who was unknown to him he immediately jumped out of bed.The prosecution at the Crown Court trial had relied upon scientific evidence inrelation to DNA which was found on the underwear of Miss A. That evidence hadbeen provided by Miss Mary Carr.Scientific evidence was provided to the Committee by both Miss Carr andadditionally Dr Susan Pope, who had not given evidence at the criminal trial.Miss Carr holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Human Biology and has been aForensic Scientist since 2004. Her field of expertise is in the examination ofbiological evidence, which includes analysis of body fluids and the interpretation ofDNA profiling results.Dr Susan Pope holds a Bachelor of Science Degree with Honours in Biochemistry andMicrobiology, a Doctor of Philosophy in Biochemistry, and is a Fellow of the

Forensic Science Society. She has published many papers in scientific journals andpresented papers at national and international scientific conferences. From 2000 to2011 she worked with the Interpretation Group at the FSS, in association with othersenior DNA scientists and forensic statisticians, specialising in the interpretation andevaluation of DNA evidence.Both witnesses provided background detail of the process for the use of DNAevidence in assisting in the process of fact finding.In summary that detail was that even if DNA itself is assumed to be unique to eachindividual, more than one person could still share the same DNA profile, e.g. morethan one person could be ‘a match’ to incident scene DNA. An expert witness cannottherefore absolutely identify a particular individual as the donor of the geneticmaterial from which a DNA profile was produced. That is because the standard DNAprofile is produced from only a small sample of the donor’s entire DNA. The samplehas been identified because it is the portion, which varies most between individuals.However when matching profiles are obtained the significance of the match can beassessed by calculating the probability that another unrelated person would have theprofile observed.When an incident sample contains DNA from more than one person, then the profileis termed a mixed profile. Depending upon the nature and complexity of a mixedDNA profile, it may nevertheless be possible to evaluate the significance of the resultsmatching a named individual. If such a calculation is possible, the figure is expressedas a likelihood ratio.All cells, except mature red blood cells, contain DNA. DNA profiles do not providedirect evidence of the cell type from which the DNA originated.Semen is detected by carrying out a chemical screening test for the presence of asoluble compound found in spermatic fluid and confirmed by demonstratingspermatozoa on microscopic examination. The relative amount of spermatozoa arecategorized by the numbers seen in the small sample used to prepare a microscopic

slide. Neat semen is characterized as 4+, the other categories being 3+, 2+, 1+ andtrace. Many forensic samples are in the range of 1-2+.When a sample contains a mixture of semen and other body fluids such as vaginalcells, one of the properties of spermatozoa can be used to separate them. The DNAcan then be extracted from the purified spermatozoa separately from the other bodyfluids. That process is called preferential extraction, and produces a spermatozoaportion and a body fluid or cellular portion.Miss Carr received the blue underwear that Miss A had been wearing on the night ofthe incident; a reference DNA sample from Miss A; five pairs of Mr Abdulla’s boxershorts which had been taken from the laundry basket at his home; and reference DNAsamples from Mr C, Yousif Osman and Mr Abdulla. The purpose of herexaminations was to determine if there were any scientific findings to assist inaddressing the issue of whether or not vaginal intercourse occurred between Miss Aand Mr Abdulla.Two areas on the underwear were examined: inside the gusset area and inside thefront area.A mixed DNA result was obtained from the gusset area indicating the presence ofDNA from at least three people. All of the components which comprise the DNAprofiles of Mr Abdulla and Mr C were represented in the result in such a way thatthey could have contributed DNA. Some of the components which comprise theDNA profile of Miss A were represented in that result, and in the opinion of MissCarr, Miss A could have contributed DNA at a low level. That was said to be notunexpected given that the underwear belonged to Miss A. However due to thecomplex nature of the result it was not suitable for a statistical evaluation in relationto the matching DNA. There was no evidence that Yousif Osman contributed to theDNA result.Inside the front area of the underwear a mixed DNA result was obtained whichindicated the presence of DNA from more than one person, and in Miss Carr’sopinion consisted of a major contribution of DNA from two people, together with a

minor contribution from a further person(s). She stated that in her opinion the majorcontribution was most likely to have originated from semen. The presence of theminor contribution did not affect the interpretation of the major contribution and shedid not consider it further.All of the components which comprised the DNA profile of Mr C were represented inthat result. Given that Mr C is the boyfriend of Miss A and had vaginal intercoursewith her earlier that day, it was not unexpected to find semen matching his DNAprofile on the underwear, and the presence of his DNA within the mixed DNA resultwas assumed.The remaining components forming the major contribution of DNA matched theDNA profile of Mr Abdulla and therefore the semen could have originated from him.If the semen did not originate from Mr Abdulla then it must match by chance. It isestimated that the scientific findings are approximately 560 million times more likelyif the semen originated from Mr C and Mr Abdulla rather than from Mr C and anunknown individual. There was no evidence that Yousif Osman contributed to thatDNA result.The boxer shorts revealed that there was no evidence that Mr C, Yousif Osman orMiss A contributed to the DNA found on the boxer shorts.Miss Carr then considered the following propositions for the Crown Court hearing:i. that Mr Abdulla had vaginal intercourse with Miss A (the Prosecution’s case) andii. that Mr Abdulla did not have vaginal intercourse with Miss A (Mr Abdulla’s case)Her analysis was:i. Ahmed Abdulla had vaginal intercourse with Miss A. If Mr Abdulla had hadvaginal intercourse with Miss A and ejaculated she would expect semen to bedeposited in her vagina and subsequently semen to drain onto her underwear,therefore the scientific findings are what she would expect if this version were true.

ii. Ahmed Abdulla did not have vaginal intercourse with Miss A but slept in the samebed as her. If Ahmed Abdulla had not had vaginal intercourse or any form of sexualactivity with Miss A she would not expect semen matching him to be present on herunderwear, therefore the scientific findings are not what she would expect if thisversion of events were true.Her conclusion was, therefore, that the scientific findings provide very strong supportfor the proposition that Ahmed Abdulla had vaginal intercourse with Miss A ratherthan that he had not.In expressing the evidential significance of her findings Miss Carr indicated that shehad used the following scale of scientific support: no support; weak; moderate;moderately strong; strong; very strong; extremely strong support.As noted above Miss Carr gave oral evidence at the Crown Court.In the course of her evidence at the Crown Court she was informed that the underwearof Miss A had been collected by Mr C and not by a Scenes of Crime Investigatorwhich, it was suggested, could have led to contamination.She accepted that the DNA found on or in Miss A’s knickers ‘might’ have come fromMr Abdulla, but it might not have. She accepted that if the DNA found in or outsideMiss A’s knickers came from Mr Abdulla it might have come from semen, but itmight not have. She had indicated that it was ‘Most likely’ to have come from semenbut accepted that ‘most likely’ is not the same as certainty. She accepted that there issometimes a ‘carry-over’ and there is a possibility that what ended up showing assperm in fact is cellular material from Mr Abdulla. She accepted that there was noanalysis of the material extracted when the preferential separation was carried out.Her evidence at the Crown Court was that in her view the chances of it not beingsemen were so slim that although “I suppose ‘most likely’ is perhaps a misleadingterm to have used, because there is a grading of ‘most likely’; so to be fair, I will say‘most likely’…’so perhaps I’ve obviously worded my statement incorrectly”.

It was suggested to her, in cross-examination at the Crown Court, that her finding thatthe evidence relating to the boxer shorts was not ‘inconclusive’ as she had said, butsupported the defence case that no intercourse took place. She said in her evidencethat because it was not known whether they were the boxer shorts worn by MrAbdulla at the time of the incident, it was important when evaluating the results tolook at both sides and look at different viewpoints, which was why she had expressedthe opinion that the results were inconclusive.She was not informed whether Mr Abdulla was wearing any of the boxer shorts at therelevant time.With regard to her statement that, “Semen matching Ahmed Abdulla was present onthe underwear of Miss A,” Miss Carr accepted that she had worded her statement insuch a way that it could cause confusion.She also accepted that if there were no ejaculation then semen would not have beendeposited into Miss A’s vagina and then would not have drained into her underwear.In her evidence before the Committee Miss Carr confirmed that a full profile had beenobtained from the samples obtained from the underwear of Miss A, and that there wasno evidence of significant degradation of the samples.She said that she was satisfied that there had been no need to analyse the cellularfraction from the preferential separation. She confirmed that for there to be transferof semen from one garment to another, in the quantity found in this case, the semenwould need to be wet.She confirmed that a complete profile for both Mr C and Mr Abdulla was found in theresults. The major contribution was most likely to have come from semen.She accepted that there had been ‘carry over’ as there was some DNA of Miss A inthe material analysed. However she was clear that the preferential extraction wasconsidered to have been successful because there was only a low level of the DNAprofile matching that of Miss A found. Given that the underwear was worn by Miss

A it was expected that there would be a large amount of her cellular DNA found onthe material. If the preferential extraction had not been successful then a largeamount of that cellular DNA would have been expected to have been found in theseminal fluid sample. She said that there is no logical reason why the preferentialextraction would have been successful in extracting Miss A’s cellular DNA yet havefailed to extract a significant amount of Mr Abdulla’s cellular DNA. That would bethe only explanation as to how his DNA profile was found in the seminal fluid sampleif it was not from semen.She accepted that the DNA might not have come from semen, but pointed out that‘possible’ is not the same as ‘probable’ and the statistical analysis needed to be takeninto account when considering the possibility that it was not from semen.She said that she would only check the separated cellular sample if there was evidenceof significant carry over, which was not the case in the sample under consideration.She said that when conducting an examination where there was an allegation of a sexoffence she would always start by first conducting an examination for semen.The absence of certain information to her was not, in her opinion, significant.She accepted that there could be transfer of DNA in a number of ways and thatpenetration without ejaculation might leave DNA, and that there could be intercoursewithout ejaculation where no detectable DNA was left.However she said that any contamination that might have occurred as a result of Mr Ccollecting the underwear would not affect her analysis as that would not affect thefinding of the profile, which matched that of Mr Abdulla. She said that there was noother test that would have made a material difference to her conclusion. Sheconfirmed that there was no evidence of contamination in this case. She confirmedthat all of her work had been reviewed and checked by two of her peers at thelaboratory.

Her evidence was that there was no evidence of any contamination, and theexamination revealed the profiles of Miss A, Mr C and Mr Abdulla.In her evidence to the Committee Miss Carr reiterated the conclusions which she hadset out in her Report.Dr Susan Pope gave evidence that the examination carried out by Miss Carr followeda standard process for examining items in the investigation of an alleged sexualassault; the DNA analysis used the standard analytical test; the examination of theitems and interpretation of the DNA results were carried out to acceptable standards,and that the conclusions drawn in the written statement of Miss Carr are reasonable,but lack clarity and may have led readers to misconstrue the sequence ofinterpretation that had been carried out.Her evidence was that on the scale for assessing the amount, the assessment for bothstains was that 1+ spermatozoa were present, which is toward the lower end of thescale but corresponds to the amount seen in many forensic samples.She said that she could not see anything that she would have done differently, and thatexamination of the cellular portion of the preferential separation would not haveadded anything.Mr Abdulla cross-examined Miss Carr at some length. In his submissions to theCommittee at the conclusion of the case he contended that DNA is not an infalliblegold standard; that there can be sexual intercourse without detectable DNA being left,and so the absence of Mr Osman’s DNA did not mean he did not have sexualintercourse with Miss A; that the profiling used could not positively identify anindividual from a sample; that mistakes can be made and much depends on theinterpretation of results. He suggested that Miss Carr had “jumped the gun” bylooking for semen when there was no evidence of ejaculation, as Miss A had notpositively said there had been ejaculation. His evidence was that every pair of hisboxer shorts had been provided, and he submitted that the absence of Miss A’s DNAon any of the shorts was supportive of his case. He further submitted that it was notcertain that all of the semen staining did not come from Mr C and that the absence of

a test of the cellular fraction cast doubt on the findings. He submitted thattransference of DNA was possible as an explanation for his DNA on Miss A’sunderwear. He further submitted that Miss Carr had not been fair and even-handedwhich, he said, was not surprising as she was a ‘prosecution witness’.In general terms there is clearly some truth in Mr Abdulla’s submissions. Noscientific method is infallible; mistakes can be made; there can be transfer of DNA;there can be contamination at various stages, and it is accepted that the profilingsystem used cannot identify an individual with absolute certainty. All that is knownto the experts who conduct the investigations and analysis.However what the Committee must consider is the relevant evidence in this particularcase and whether there is anything in the process that casts doubt upon the experts'opinion. If there is not then the opinion of the expert will provide assistance to theCommittee in coming to a determination. The opinion forms part of the evidence tobe analysed. It does not provide a conclusive answer but gives statistical informationto be considered along with the other evidence.The Committee was satisfied that the experts in this case understood their duty toassist by giving objective, unbiased opinion on matters within their expertise, and thatthey fulfilled their duty. They took account of all relevant matters before expressingtheir conclusions and expert opinions.The two experts drew the same conclusions. There was no contrary scientificevidence before the Committee relating to Miss A’s underwear.The Committee accepted the scientific evidence given by Miss Carr and Dr Pope andconcluded that it provided very strong support for Miss A’s account of the incident.As part of their investigations the police asked Mr Abdulla if he was on Facebook, towhich he replied, “No”. He was asked, “You’re not?” and again replied, “No”. Hewas asked, “Are you sure about that?’ to which he replied, “Yeah. Well, I am, yeah.I am”.

He was subsequently asked why he had lied and said, “Well because that’s what Iusually tell people”.It was pointed out to him that he was in a police interview and asked, “So why wouldyou not want me to know you had a Facebook account?” to which he replied, “Don’tknow”.The Committee found the fact that Mr Abdulla initially lied about being on Facebookdamaging to his credibility.The police obtained access to the Facebook accounts of Mr Osman and Mr Abdulla.These revealed the following exchanges:"Stringer Bell [Mr Abdulla]: Did u tell da girl she pulled me into bed??Yousif ‘fatjoe’ Osman: what? no man she hasn’t replied back yet.Stringer Bell [Mr Abdulla]: Did she say she rrportin me??Yousif ‘fatjoe’ Osman: she said she’ll report both of us but she hasn’t saidanything bad.Stringer Bell [Mr Abdulla]: Yo tell her u jumpd in da window n shell get dunbreakin n enterin Cos no1 was ment t b derYousif ‘fatjoe’ Osman: shit lie man lol. think of something better coz she probknws tha she didn’t jump through coz she waited in the car when we jumpedlol.Stringer Bell [Mr Abdulla]: Lol yo giv her fone bak bruv!!!? B4 she reportsus cos da boys sed I had pigs outside today. In any case im denying I was ther.Com out tnite"

In another entry on his Facebook page Mr Abdulla had posted ‘Wtfffffffffffff businessclass outa ere or wat’Mr Abdulla said that when he made the Facebook entries he was concerned that hewould get into trouble for something, which he had not done. He thought that thereference to being reported related to the fact that Mr Osman had Miss A’s telephone.He said that the reference to ‘business class outa ere or wat’ related to a completelydifferent matter and the fact that someone he knew was being paid much more than hewas.The Committee did not find Mr Abdulla’s explanations for the Facebook entries to becredible.Miss Foster submitted that the Facebook entries support the proposition that MrAbdulla was frightened because he had committed a sexual impropriety with Miss Aand he feared she would report him. He encouraged his friend to assist him in acover-up. He was contemplating lying about his presence in the house. TheCommittee agreed with that analysis.A screening test of Mr Abdulla’s saliva was taken on 8 September 2011 and the testproved positive for cocaine. Mr Abdulla did not contest that finding.As a result Mr Abdulla was seen at around 08:00 on 9 September 2011 by MrsFowler, a former police officer who attained the rank of Chief Inspector and is nowemployed by G4S as a drugs worker. She has been employed in that capacity sinceAugust 2009. Her role was to interview anyone who had tested positive for a Class Adrug in custody. She conducted an interview with Mr Abdulla which would havelasted approximately forty minutes. In the course of the interview Mr Abdullaadmitted that he had consumed coca leaves which he, wrongly, understood were a‘legal high’. He admitted that he consumed alcohol and was a recreational user ofcannabis.Later that day Mrs Fowler attended Swansea Magistrates’ Court where Mr Abdullamade his first appearance as a remand prisoner. She gave evidence that Mr Abdulla’s

solicitor informed the magistrate that his client was vehemently opposed to the use ofdrugs and alcohol due to his Muslim background. She said at that time she was inpossession of Mr Abdulla’s signed Drug Interventions Record but was not in aposition to refute the solicitor’s comments as she had not been invited to address thecourt by the clerk.Mr Abdulla challenged the evidence of Mrs Fowler both in relation to her completionof a document recording his answers to her questions regarding his drug use and inrelation to her evidence as to the exchange in the Magistrates’ Court.The Committee found, and Mrs Fowler accepted, that the questionnaire which shewas completing recording Mr Abdulla’s responses was ill-equipped for its purpose,and the Committee found that there was a real danger that as a result a misleadingimpression could be gained from simply reading the form without some explanationof its content. Mrs Fowler provided that explanation which clarified matters, whichmight otherwise have been prejudicial to Mr Abdulla, and the Committee found her tobe a credible witness. We found her recollection of the exchange, which she said tookplace at the Magistrates’ Court to be clear and accurate.A search was carried out at Mr Abdulla’s home, which involved the use of dogstrained to discover illicit drugs. No such drugs were found; however as a result ofinformation provided to the police by Mr Abdulla there was found at the house a GCwatch box containing two clear plastic heat sealed bags labelled “Andean Coca”which held a total of six green coated leaves weighing 16.22 grams and had theappearance of confectionery coated leaf material and a total of six brown-coatedleaves which weighed 15.84 grams and had the appearance of confectionery coatedleaf material. The leaf material in both cases was found to contain cocaine thereforeidentifying it as coca leaf material. The coating was not found to contain anycontrolled substances. Coca leaf is a Class A, Schedule 1 controlled substance underthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.There was scientific evidence presented in relation to the drug allegations.

Mrs Denise Stanworth holds a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in physiologyand biochemistry. She was employed for over 16 years by the Home Office ForensicScience Service as a forensic scientist specialising in the analysis of body fluids andother materials for the presence of alcohol, drugs and poisons. Since September 1998she has been employed by Forensic Alliance Limited, now LGC Forensics, in asimilar capacity. She was provided with a blood sample from Mr Abdulla which hadbeen provided at 01:00 hours on 8 September 2011, and a urine sample from MrAbdulla which had been provided by him at 01:05 hours on 8 September 2011. Thesamples were received by her on 21 December 2011.She said that it was important to note that the concentrations of drugs in urine are ofless direct value than those in blood when attempting to relate the concentrations totheir possible effects on the subject. Drugs present in the bloodstream undergovarious changes (metabolism) as they pass through various organs and before theyenter the urine. These changes are sometimes quite extensive and often result indifferent proportions of parent drug and metabolites in the urine when compared withthe blood. The rate of excretion of drugs into the urine may vary from person toperson and the urine itself may be more diluted or concentrated, depending on thefluid intake of the subject.Her conclusions were that Mr Abdulla had used cocaine and cannabis at some timeprior to the provision of his urine specimen. She was unable to determine preciselywhen he last used either drug or in what quantity. Given the long time intervalbetween the incident and provision of the specimens it is possible that the drugs wereused after the incident.She was unable to rule out the possibility that Mr Abdulla was intoxicated throughalcohol at the time of the incident.Given the long time interval between the incident and the provision of Mr Abdulla’sspecimens, she was unable to rule out the use of a number of other substances.In her oral evidence she confirmed that the cocaine would not have been used asrecently as within 12 hours or so of the provision of the blood sample. The metabolite

of cocaine found in his urine was at quite a low level and indicated use someconsiderable time before the sample was provided. She indicated that an abuseamount would be typically 20mg of cocaine. She said she would not have expected tobe able to detect a small amount of cocaine found in coca leaves four days after theiringestion. The average length of time it took cocaine to pass through a person’ssystem is between 2 to 4 days, and an abuse dose would pass through the blood in ashorter period of time, possibly 1 to 2 days.She accepted that she could not comment on the effects of the drug on a particularindividual and could not correlate the urine level to level in the blood. She could notstate how much was ingested nor could she say in what form the cocaine wasingested. An abuse dose could be detected over a period of up to four days dependingon the individual’s metabolism.She was asked to comment upon the fact that the samples had been taken inSeptember but not tested until December, and she indicated she would not haveexpected there to be any breakdown of the samples which are stored in the fridge orfreezer. She said it was difficult to comment on the effects on an individual,particularly if there had been a combination of drugs or a combination of drugs andalcohol. She confirmed her findings were conclusive that Mr Abdulla had cocaine inhis system and that was revealed in the tests. She said that she would not expect to beable to detect cocaine ingested from three or four coca leaves ingested four daysbefore the test.Mr Michael Scott-Ham prepared a Report for the General Pharmaceutical Councildated 3 October 2012. He holds an Honours degree in Applied Chemistry and worksas a Forensic Consultant. From 1978 to March 1996 he was employed at theMetropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory (MPSL) and that employmentcontinued when the laboratory merged with the Forensic Science Service (FSS). Heleft the Forensic Science Service at the end of February 2012 when the service closeddown. Whilst there, from 2006 onwards, he was the Principal Scientist forToxicology. He has more than 20 years of experience in the field of ForensicToxicology and 10 years in the field of Forensic Drug analysis.

He provided a general comment concerning cocaine and coca leaf and their uses andeffects on the body, including comments on the effect of cocaine on sexual behaviour.He told the Committee that a typical abuse dose of cocaine used to be of the order of100 to 200mg (which he noted was higher than the figure provided by Mrs Stanworth)of powder, when the powder strength was higher than that currently encountered, andtherefore nowadays a typical abuse dose of illicit cocaine powder is probably higherthan that.He told the Committee that cocaine is a powerful stimulant drug which produces briefstimulant effects which then fade away with the come down or after effects then beingexperienced. The initial stimulant effects are relatively brief and diminish afteraround 15 to 30 minutes or so and include an intense euphoria, feelings of increasedenergy, strength and self-confidence, exuberance, increased wakefulness andalertness, indifference to pain, talkativeness, increased heart rate and sweating. Theuser will then experience after-effects (come down) which can include depression,anxiety, fatigue, drowsiness, irritability, melancholy, disturbed sleep, hunger,lethargy, feelings of tension and agitation and craving for the drug. The duration ofthe after-effects is variable. Other drugs may be used to attempt to alleviate some ofthe comedown effects, e.g. cannabis and benzodiazepine.He said that it was outside his area of expertise to comment on cocaine use and sexualactivity in great detail; however he was able to give some general detail as aconsequence of cases of which he has knowledge as a forensic scientist. He said thatthe strategic uses of cocaine cited include to facilitate sexual encounters, increaselibido, enhance arousal and sensation, prolong and increase the intensity of orgasmand prolong the encounter.Mr Scott-Ham’s evidence was that Erythroxylum Coca is a plant that grows naturallyin South America, primarily Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador. The plant form isa bush that can grow up to about 8 feet tall. The leaves, which are visually similar tobay leaves, are known as coca leaves and harvested several times a year, to beprocessed into the drug cocaine.

The leaves themselves actually contain a very small amount of cocaine, typically only0.2 to 0.8% cocaine by weight. Coca leaf can be used as a beverage, “coca tea”,amongst native South American people, but it is also often taken by chewing andholding in the mouth for a considerable time to allow the cocaine to be extracted. Acup of coca tea typically contains about 5 to 10 broken up dry coca leaves in a typicalteacup.The weight of coca leaves in a typical beverage would be of the order of 0.5 to 1 gramand will therefore contain anything between 1 and 8 milligrams (mg) of drug,depending on the strength of cocaine in the leaf material, and assuming fullextraction.When compared to a typical abuse dose of cocaine of 100 to 200mg, it can be seenthat the amount of cocaine ingested in the form of coca leaves is very small, even ifall of the cocaine within the leaves was actually absorbed. He said that he would notexpect a person who has ingested coca leaves to experience any noteworthy effects ofcocaine unless a very large amount of coca leaf material had been used, or unless theyhad prepared a large quantity of leaf material in a way to extract the cocaine alkaloidcontained within.In his oral evidence he said that cannabis was often used after ingesting cocaine toalleviate the comedown effects.He said that 100/200mg of cocaine represented less than a teaspoonful. Cocaine isabsorbed quite quickly and breaks down quite quickly. Cocaine is typically in theblood for 6 to 12 hours as cocaine, and up to 24 hours to 36 hours as an extreme as itsmetabolite, benzoylecgonine.In urine, cocaine itself would be detectable for probably up to around 12 hours or so,and benzoylecgonine is detectable for certainly two or three days, possibly a littlelonger, but again it depends on how much cocaine has been taken.His evidence was that the amount of cocaine in coca leaves is very very small, and hesaid he would probably not expect to see anything in the blood sample unless the

testers were using a very very sensitive analytical technique. In urine it would bepossible to detect some of the metabolite for a shortish period of time, a matter ofhours. He said there was no chance of the results shown in Mr Abdulla’s urinesample being produced four days later as a result of extraction from coca leaves.Mr Scott-Ham said that cocaine is a United Nations controlled drug and it could notbe bought on the street. Coca leaf is not controlled in the same way and he agreed itcould perhaps be made into some form of lozenge, although he had never heard of orseen coca sweets.He was asked about the saliva test, which Mr Abdullah produced the day followingthe incident which showed positive for cocaine and cannabis. He indicated that thesaliva test was not consistent with the findings of the examination of the urinespecimen, which suggested either the saliva test was faulty or cocaine had beeningested in the interim. He indicated he did have experience of saliva tests provingfaulty.He said that cocaine is unstable and can break down but be preserved if there wassodium fluoride in the samples. Its metabolite is more stable than cocaine itself. Heindicated the finding of the test was consistent with an abuse dosage being taken onthe Saturday night or a few days prior to the taking of the sample.He expressed the view that if a lozenge were created with cocaine extract at aconcentrated level it would fall foul of the control regime. To extract cocaine fromcoca leaves it would be necessary to chew them for a considerable time.Mr Scott-Ham said that if a lozenge were produced which had a more concentratedlevel of cocaine than found in the leaves he thought it would fall foul of drug controllaws. He accepted that the concentration may be slightly higher, but thought that if itwas significantly higher it would be subject to legal control in Peru.Mr Abdulla accepted that he had in his possession the Andean Coca leaves and that hehad supplied some of these to Yousif Osman. He also said that he had some Cocasweets which had also been brought back from Peru and that he had consumed three

of these. The sweets themselves were not produced nor had there been any analysisconducted as to their content. Mr Abdulla produced a photograph of the packet ofsweets which he said that he had taken some months previously and which he hadretained on his computer. The photograph indicated that they were branded ‘Coca’and that they contained ‘natural extract’.Mr Abdulla gave evidence that there had been no consumption by him of cocainefollowing his arrest and prior to the provision by him of a urine sample.The Committee accepted the evidence of Mrs Stanworth and Mr Scott-Ham andconcluded that the level of cocaine and its metabolite found in Mr Abdulla’s urinesample was not compatible with the consumption of a small quantity of coca leavesand sweets, and that it could only be explained by the consumption of a much largerdose of cocaine on or before 9 September 2011.Mr Abdulla admitted that he had accepted a street warning for possession of cannabison or about 17 October 2010. A copy of the police officer’s notebook recording thewarning was produced for the inspection of the Committee. That recorded that MrAbdulla had signed a note indicating, “I admit possession of cannabis grass for myown use. I paid £10.00 and I am aware it is illegal for me to possess it”. There wasalso produced a note of an interview conducted with Mr Abdulla by his formeremployer. In that note Helen Lewis notes that Mr Abdulla told her that he was not inpossession of cannabis and said that he told the police that the cannabis was his sothat his girlfriend would not be arrested.Mr Abdulla told the Committee that he had not lied to the police over this matterwhen accepting the street caution because he had explained the circumstances to theofficer, who was therefore aware of why he was accepting the street caution. TheCommittee did not find that explanation credible.Dr R, XXXXXXXXXXX [Redacted] was commissioned by the Council to prepare aReport on Mr Abdulla’s health. His Report was dated 21 October 2012. He wasprovided with the custody record of Mr Abdulla dated 9 September 2011, Mr

Abdulla’s GP records and his hospital records.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [Redacted]Mr Abdulla chose to give oral evidence and subject himself to cross-examination,which gave the Committee the opportunity to observe him whilst giving thatevidence. The Committee also had the opportunity to observe his behaviour on thenight of the incident as that was captured on the CCTV footage.Mr Abdulla also produced statements from friends who spent some of Saturday nightand the following Sunday with him. None of those friends were in the house at the

time of the incident, and the Committee did not find their evidence significantlysupported Mr Abdulla’s account.The Committee’s conclusions are as follows:The Committee did not find Mr Abdulla to be a credible witness. It has set outabove the particular areas where it has found his evidence to lack credibility.Where there is a conflict between his evidence and that of Miss A, whom theCommittee found to be credible and reliable, the Committee preferred herevidence to that of Mr Abdulla. In addition the Committee found there wasscientific and other evidence supportive of Miss A’s evidence.The Committee found proved the allegation that on 4 September 2011 MrAbdulla engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Miss A, in that heintentionally removed her clothing for the purpose of engaging in sexualactivity and penetrated the vagina of Miss A. The conduct occurred when shewas asleep and at a time when Mr Abdulla knew or ought to have known shewas asleep.His actions in so doing were inappropriate, sexually motivated and contrary toPrinciple 6.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance.The Committee make no finding in respect of the allegation of attemptedpenetration, which was charged in the alternative to the substantive allegationof actual penetration.Mr Abdulla admitted, and the Committee found proved, that on or about 17thOctober 2010 he was found by the police to be in possession of an unknownquantity of Cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, for his own personal use andwas issued with a street warning.

The Committee found his actions to be inappropriate, contrary to section 5 ofthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to Principle 6.5 of the Standards ofConduct, Ethics and Performance.Mr Abdulla admitted, and the Committee found proved, that on or before 4September 2011 he supplied an unknown quantity of Andean Coca Leaf, aClass A controlled drug, to YMO.The Committee found his actions to be inappropriate, contrary to section 4 ofthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to Principles 6.2 and 6.5 of theStandards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance.Mr Abdulla admitted, and the Committee found proved, that on or before 4September 2011 he consumed an unknown quantity of Andean Coca Leaf, aClass A controlled drug.The Committee found his actions to be inappropriate, contrary to section 5 ofthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to Principle 6.5 of the Standards ofConduct, Ethics and Performance.As indicated above the Committee did not find Mr Osman to be a crediblewitness. Further there was no evidence of any drug test conducted upon MrOsman for cocaine or any other controlled drug. There was no evidence ofany cocaine (apart from the coca leaves) or other controlled drugs found at MrAbdulla’s parents’ house.Accordingly the Committee did not find proved that on or before 4 September2011 Mr Abdulla supplied an unknown quantity of Cocaine, a Class Acontrolled drug, to YMO.The Committee did not find proved that on or before 4 September 2011 MrAbdulla supplied an unknown quantity of an unknown controlled drug toYMO without a valid prescription.

The Committee accepted the scientific evidence of Mrs Stanworth and MrScott-Ham to the effect that the toxicology results could not be explained byingestion of a few coca leaves or coca sweets taken several days prior to thetests undergone by Mr Abdulla.Accordingly the Committee found proved that on or before 9 September 2011Mr Abdulla consumed Cocaine (other than by way of coca leaves), a Class Acontrolled drug.The Committee found his actions to be inappropriate, contrary to section 5 ofthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to Principle 6.5 of the Standards ofConduct, Ethics and Performance.The Committee made no finding on the alternative particular that on or before8 September 2011 Mr Abdulla consumed an unknown quantity of an unknowncontrolled drug.Mr Abdulla admitted, and the Committee found proved, that on or before 9September 2011 he consumed cannabis, a Class B controlled drug.The Committee found his actions to be inappropriate, contrary to section 5 ofthe Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to Principle 6.5 of the Standards ofConduct, Ethics and Performance.Mr Abdulla admitted and the Committee found proved that on or before 9September 2011, he consumed Khat.The Committee notes that Khat is currently not an illegal substance in the UK,although there are clear dangers in its use particularly if that use is regular andsignificant. The evidence of Mr Abdulla’s use of Khat came from him, andthere is no evidence that his use is current, that there is any sort of addiction,or that there is any evidence of it having any adverse effects upon hiscapability to operate as a pharmacist.

The Committee did not find proved that in the particular circumstances hisactions were inappropriate or contrary to Principle 6.5 of the Standards ofConduct, Ethics and Performance.The Committee did not find that Principle 2.1 of the Standards of Conduct,Ethics and Performance was relevant in the particular circumstances of theseallegations, which more properly fell within the ambit of other Principles.In the light of the evidence of Dr R the Committee did not find proved that MrAbdulla was suffering from adverse physical or mental health."That is the Committee's determination on the facts. We now move on toconsideration of the question of impairment of fitness to practise.(At 4.07 pm the hearing adjourned until 9.30 am on Friday 14 December 2012)

GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILFITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE129 Lambeth Road, London SE1 7BTFriday 14 December 2012Chairman:Committee Members:Mr Stuart TurnockMrs Jillian AlderwickProfessor Jim SmithLegal Adviser:Clinical Adviser:Committee Secretary:Mr Robin HayDr Josephine Owen-JonesMiss Kylie EllwayCASE OF:ABDULLA, Ahmed Radwan Kaid(Registration Number: 2076809)DETERMINATIONS ON IMPAIRMENT AND SANCTION-------------------------------------MISS ALISON FOSTER QC and MISS SAFIA IMAN, Barrister, appeared on behalfof the General Pharmaceutical Council.MR ABDULLA was present and represented himself.-------------------------------------Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of T A Reed & Co LtdTel No: 01992 465900

-------------------------------------INDEXPage numberDetermination on impairment 1Determination on sanction 3PLEASE NOTE: Copies printed from email may differ in formatting and/orpage numbering from hard copies

(The hearing commenced at 9.29 am)DETERMINATION ON IMPAIRMENTTHE CHAIRMAN: The Committee has considered whether, in the light of its determinationof the facts, Mr Abdulla’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.Miss Foster on behalf of the Council submitted that Mr Abdulla’s fitness to practise iscurrently impaired, and referred the Committee to a number of cases in support of hercontention. Those cases were Roylance v GMC (No2) PC [2000] 1 AC 311, Yeong v GMC[2009] EWHC 1923, Kirk v RCVS [51 of 2002] PC and The Queen on the application ofJames Rice v the HPC [2011] EWHC 1649.Mr Abdulla submitted that those cases were not of relevance, as they are based on verydifferent factual circumstances. He also submitted that although, because of his use ofcannabis in 2011, his fitness to practise may then have been impaired, that was no longer thecase. He said that he no longer smoked cannabis, had a different circle of friends, and that hehad changed and matured as an individual.There is no definition in the legislation as to what amounts to impairment.Article 51(1) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 provides that “a person’s fitness to practise shallbe regarded as impaired, for the purposes of this Order, only by reason of...” It then lists anumber of reasons, the first of which is (a) misconduct.It is established in the cases quoted that misconduct is conduct falling seriously short of whatthe public has a right to expect from a registered pharmacist. It is also well established inthose cases that behaviour not linked to professional practice can lead to a finding that thepharmacist’s fitness to practise is impaired.Mr Abdulla admitted a number of the particulars of allegation, which related to the use ofboth Class A and Class B drugs and to the supply of a Class A drug to a friend. TheCommittee determined that, in addition, he consumed cocaine around 9 September 2011, andthat he committed serious sexual misconduct on 4 September 2011. The Committee found

that by his behaviour he has breached the requirements of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, andimportant principles of the Pharmacists Standards of Conduct, Ethics and Performance.There is no question that amounts to serious misconduct. It is then necessary to considerwhether, as a result of that serious misconduct, Mr Abdulla’s fitness to practise is impaired atthe date of this hearing.Fitness to practise criteria are referred to in Rule 5 of the 2010 Rules, where it states at 5(1):“The Committee must have regard to criteria specified in paragraph 5(2).”That subparagraph provides, in relation to evidence about the conduct or behaviour of aregistrant which might cast doubt upon whether the requirements as to fitness to practise aremet in relation to the registrant:“The Committee must have regard to whether or not that conduct or behaviour:(a) presents an actual or potential risk to patients or the public;(b) has brought or might bring the profession into disrepute;(c) has breached one of the fundamental principles of the profession of pharmacy;or(d) shows that the integrity of the registrant can no longer be relied upon.”The action of a registrant who has been found to have committed serious sexual misconductand has consumed and provided another person with Class A drugs has unquestionablybrought the profession into disrepute and has breached fundamental principles of theprofession of pharmacy.Although the requirement is to consider the question in impairment at the date of hearing, it isclear that in determining impairment of fitness to practise at the time of the hearing, regardmust be had to the way the person has acted or failed to act in the past.The allegations relate to a period that is now over 12 months ago. The Committee hasconsidered whether there could be said to be anything, which Mr Abdulla has done since thein that could be said to have in any way remedied his conduct. The Committee has heard thatrecent testing confirmed that there is no evidence of current use by Mr Abdulla of drugs ofabuse.

With regard to the findings related to sexual misconduct it is difficult to see what remedialsteps could be taken. In any event, Mr Abdulla has consistently denied that misconduct, andthe Committee is satisfied that the question of remediation does not therefore arise.The Committee is of the view that, given the extremely serious nature of the misconduct ofMr Abdulla, the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in theprofession must lead to a finding that his fitness to practise is currently impaired.DETERMINATION ON SANCTIONTHE CHAIRMAN: The Committee is now in a position to deliver its determination on thequestion of sanction. The Committee, having determined that Mr Abdulla’s fitness topractise is currently impaired, must consider what sanction, if any, should be imposed. Thesanctions available are limited and are set out in Article 54(2) of the Pharmacy Order 2010.That provides that if the Fitness to Practise Committee determine that the fitness to practiseof the person concerned is impaired, it may, in summary:• give a warning to the person and give direction that details of the warning be recorded inthe register;• give a direction that the entry in the register of the person will be subject to conditions fora period not exceeding three years;• give a direction that the entry in the register of the person concerned be suspended forsuch period not exceeding 12 months; or• give a direction that the entry in the register of the person concerned be removed.The Committee has been assisted by consideration of the Council’s Fitness to PractiseCommittee’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance, which reminds it that the purpose of sanction isthree-fold: the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in theprofession and the maintenance of proper standards of behaviour.The Indicative Sanctions Guidance also states very clearly, and it has been made clear in anumber of cases, that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish a practitioner. In consideringthe sanction, the Committee exercises a discretion and is required to exercise that discretion

in a way that is fair and reasonable. This requires a Committee to weigh the interests of thepractitioner against the need for public protection. In making its decision, the Committee willhave regard to the public interest, which includes protection of members of the public,maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding properstandards of conduct and performance.In the case of Bolton v Law Society [1991] 1 WLR 512 CA it was said that “the reputation ofthe profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership ofa profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.”Although that case relates to a solicitor, the principle is equally applicable to a pharmacist.In considering the appropriate sanction in this case, the Committee have given considerationto the mitigating and aggravating features of the facts found proved, and the personalcircumstances of Mr Abdulla.Mr Abdulla is a recently-qualified pharmacist who is married with a young child. TheCommittee have read testimonials, which speak highly of him. He has never appeared beforea Disciplinary Committee previously.Mr Abdulla admitted a number of the allegations he faced, and the Committee have found hecommitted misconduct of an extremely serious nature.In order to arrive at the right conclusion, the Committee are advised to adopt what is called a‘step-wise’ approach, starting with the least restrictive sanction, considering whether that isappropriate and continuing until the right and appropriate sanction is reached and, havingdone so, to consider and explain why that is the case.The sanction of a warning, which is appropriate where there are minor breaches of standards,or conditional registration, where conditions would be directed to Mr Abdulla’s misconduct,are clearly not appropriate in a case of this nature. The Committee therefore considered thesanctions of suspension and erasure.

The Indicative Sanctions Guidance suggests that suspension may be appropriate where thereis no evidence of a repetition of misconduct, public confidence in the profession demands nolesser sanction, a message needs to be sent to the profession and the public that the conduct isunacceptable and unbefitting of a pharmacist, but that conducts falls short of beingfundamentally incompatible with continued registration.Cases where removal from the register may be appropriate include there where there isbehaviour fundamentally incompatible with registration and public confidence in theprofession demands no lesser sanction.Had the case related solely to Mr Abdulla’s misuse of drugs, suspension might arguably havebeen a proportionate response. However, the Committee found serious sexual misconduct.The Indicative Sanctions Guidance indicates that in such cases removal from the register maybe appropriate.The Committee concluded that in this case, Mr Abdulla’s conduct is fundamentallyincompatible with continued registration, and maintenance of the public confidence in theprofession demands no lesser sanction than the removal of his name from the register.- - - -

DETERMINATION ON INTERIM MEASURESTHE CHAIRMAN: The order removing Mr Abdulla’s name from the register will not takeeffect during the period allowed for an appeal, (which is 28 days unless extended by therelevant court), or where an appeal is brought, until the appeal is concluded.Article 60 of the Pharmacy Order 2010 provides that where a Fitness to Practise Committeegives a direction to remove a registrant’s entry from one or more parts of the register, if it issatisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public, or is otherwisein the public interest or in the interests of the registrant, it may order that the entry of theregistrant be suspended forthwith, pending the coming into force of the direction.The Committee’s findings do raise issues of patient safety, if Mr Abdulla were to return topractice, given his history of use and supply of a Class A drug. Moreover, given theextremely serious nature of the sexual misconduct the Committee consider it is otherwise inthe public interest for there to be an immediate suspension. Public confidence in theprofession and the Regulator would otherwise be undermined.The Committee accordingly make a direction under Article 60.