Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 3 months
The regulator’s term: suspension
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Shahmeen Rasul, doctor (General Medical Council 7836122).
Decision date: 15 April 2026 · Hearing started 7 April 2026 and ended 15 April 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Shahmeen Rasul, while working as a Foundation Year 2 doctor in Belfast in 2024, dishonestly completed and signed a professional reference in the name of a consultant cardiologist without his knowledge or agreement, and submitted it to a locum agency. The tribunal found her insight into the dishonesty was still developing and that the risk to public protection was medium. It suspended her registration for three months and directed a review hearing.
Charges
Between April and May 2024 Dr Rasul was working as a Foundation Year 2 doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. On 17 May 2024, as part of her application for registration with the locum agency NC Healthcare, she submitted a reference form which she had completed and signed in the name of Dr A, a Consultant Cardiologist. She knew Dr A had not agreed for her or anyone else to complete the form on his behalf and had not signed it. The Tribunal found her actions were dishonest.
Findings
The Tribunal found that completing and signing a professional reference in another doctor's name without authority and in a dishonest manner was a serious departure from Good Medical Practice and amounted to misconduct. It assessed the dishonesty as falling at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness because it occurred in Dr Rasul's professional role and involved premeditation. The Tribunal concluded all three limbs of public protection were engaged and that her insight remained developing and incomplete, with reflections focused more on systems than on personal probity. It found her fitness to practise was currently impaired and that the level of current and ongoing risk to public protection was medium.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Previously of good character with no prior regulatory findings; isolated single incident with no repetition over the two years since; engaged with the proceedings; undertook reflective work and CPD including a Professional Boundaries in Practice course; positive testimonials from current educational supervisor and colleagues; continued progression in a competitive surgical training programme.
Aggravating factors
The conduct was premeditated, in that Dr Rasul printed, completed and submitted the reference form herself; the conduct undermined a system designed to protect the public, namely the requirement for independent and reliable references.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.