Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Alaaeldin Kamel, doctor (General Medical Council 7486732).
Decision date: 12 June 2026 · Hearing started 4 June 2026 and ended 12 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Alaaeldin Kamel, a doctor, fabricated four reports and repeatedly sent them to the General Medical Council to use at his interim and tribunal hearings, breaching conditions on his registration. It found this dishonesty was deliberate and repeated over about a year, and that his fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct. The tribunal decided that his conduct was incompatible with continued registration and directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register.
Charges
The GMC alleged that on or around 9 December 2023 Dr Kamel submitted an onboarding form to University Hospitals Bristol and Weston Foundation Trust answering 'No' to a question, and that this answer was dishonest. It further alleged that he fabricated four reports purporting to be from a colleague (dated between October 2024 and October 2025), sent those fabricated reports to the GMC for use at Interim Orders Tribunal hearings and a Medical Practitioners Tribunal hearing, breached a condition imposed on his registration by an Interim Orders Tribunal by submitting them, knew the colleague had not provided the reports, and that his actions were dishonest.
Findings
The Tribunal found proved, on Dr Kamel's admission, that he submitted the form answering 'No', but found not proved the allegations that he knew the relevant information and that answering 'No' was dishonest. It found proved, on his admissions, that he fabricated four reports purporting to be from a colleague, sent them to the GMC for use at Interim Orders Tribunal and Medical Practitioners Tribunal hearings, breached an interim order condition by submitting them, knew the colleague had not provided them, and that these actions were dishonest. The Tribunal found his fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct, describing a pattern of persistent and repeated dishonesty over about 12 months at the higher end of seriousness, with limited insight and remediation and a high risk of repetition.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Tribunal identified as mitigating factors that there was no evidence of any prior fitness to practise concerns or findings against Dr Kamel, and it considered in full the challenging personal and family circumstances which had an impact on him.
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal identified factors that increased the seriousness of the allegation: the behaviour was persistent or repeated; it was premeditated; it showed a reckless disregard for patient safety or professional standards; and it undermined a system designed to protect the public.
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.