Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS strikes off biomedical scientist Paul Ar Mginah

A panel found four serious misconduct matters, a total lack of insight and an unresolved risk to patients and colleagues.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 23 February 2024 · Updated 23 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning Paul Ar Mginah, biomedical scientist (Health and Care Professions Council BS35354).

Decision date: 23 February 2024 · Hearing started 19 February 2024 and ended 23 February 2024

In plain English

The HCPTS panel found four serious laboratory-safety and process failures by biomedical scientist Paul Ar Mginah, including failures involving equipment controls, airflow, duplicate tests and formalin monitoring. It found continuing impairment and a real repetition risk, struck him off and imposed an interim suspension pending appeal.

Charges

It was alleged that the Registrant made a series of laboratory-practice errors between December 2017 and July 2018, including sample and tissue errors, failure to run a control after replacing staining-machine reagents, sending a request to the wrong laboratory, incorrect sample-preparation advice, failure to check airflow readings, duplicate test requests and failure to carry out formalin readings; that the formalin matter was misconduct, the other matters were lack of competence, and his fitness to practise was impaired.

Findings

The Panel proved Particulars 3, 6, 7 and 8 and did not prove Particulars 1, 2, 4 or 5. It found the four proved matters amounted to serious misconduct rather than lack of competence, and found current impairment on personal and public components with a real repetition risk. It ordered striking off and imposed an interim suspension for the appeal period, up to 18 months.

Mitigating factors

The Registrant had engaged, albeit at this the latest stage of the HCPC process, this hearing. [Redacted]. The Panel has not been made aware of any further issues relating to his registration. The Registrant has a long career as a Biomedical Scientist. The Registrant had provided a supportive reference from his current place of work outlining his satisfactory performance within his role as a Medical Scientist.

Aggravating factors

The Registrant had failed to engage in the HCPC process until this hearing. The Registrant had displayed a lack of insight into the impact his acts and omissions had on service users and colleagues. There was a lack of remorse, regret or apology for his acts and omissions. There Registrant had failed to appreciate that he had clinical and professional issues with his practice. There had been a failure to provide any evidence of him addressing those failings. The Registrant maintained that his conduct was not at fault, and that he had been the victim of the organisation and others. The Registrant had shown a lack of candour about how two of the incidents had occurred.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council 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.