Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration to the register refused
The regulator’s term: restoration refused
What does “restoration to the register refused” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was refused. The original strike-off remains in effect.
Concerning Humayun Iqbal, doctor (General Medical Council 5199705).
Decision date: 31 March 2026 · Hearing started 23 March 2026 and ended 31 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal decided that Mr Humayun Iqbal should not be restored to the medical register. He had been erased in 2013 after the original panel found he had sexually assaulted two junior female colleagues at a Newcastle hospital and made dishonest statements during the investigation. The tribunal found his insight and remediation were limited and that restoring him would undermine public confidence and the safety of patients and colleagues. He must wait at least 12 months before reapplying.
Charges
Mr Iqbal applied for his name to be restored to the medical register following his erasure for disciplinary reasons in 2013. The 2013 Panel had found proved that on 4 November 2009 he sexually assaulted Ms A by touching her breast and cheek; that on 4 December 2009 he sexually assaulted Dr B by touching her breast, attempting to kiss her and attempting to force his hand down her blouse; and that during the Hospital's investigation he made dishonest statements about a meeting with Mr D, complaints from nursing staff about Dr B's performance, and racist comments allegedly made by Dr B. The 2013 Panel concluded his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and erased his name from the medical register.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Mr Iqbal had developed only limited and developing insight, and that his apology was somewhat superficial. He continued to deny the underlying sexual misconduct and a focus on perceived procedural injustice meant insufficient attention had been given to remediation. Although he had undertaken courses such as the Alternative to Violence Project workshops and an MBA, there was no targeted training on professional boundaries, honesty or probity, and limited evidence of how reflections had been applied in practice. The Tribunal concluded the risk of repetition, although low, remained, and that restoration would not meet the overarching objective.
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.