Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 4 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 Cinderella Nonoo-Cohen, doctor (General Medical Council 3674585).
Decision date: 20 February 2026 · Hearing started 20 October 2025 and ended 20 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Cinderella Nonoo-Cohen's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. The tribunal found that a WhatsApp message she sent to fellow GPs in October 2023 was Islamophobic and seriously offensive, that messages portraying a colleague as antisemitic were seriously offensive, and that a public post on X about university admissions demonstrated racial hostility and was seriously offensive. It ordered a four-month suspension with a review hearing and did not impose an immediate order. Dr Nonoo-Cohen has lodged an appeal and remains free to practise unrestricted while it is considered.
Charges
On 18 October 2023 Dr Nonoo-Cohen sent messages within a WhatsApp group of fellow GPs which it was alleged were inappropriate, including stating 'typical of you Muslims to gaslight' and attempting to portray Dr A as antisemitic, and that the messages were objectively Islamophobic, motivated by or demonstrated hostility to Palestinians and/or their supporters, and were seriously offensive. It was further alleged that on her public X account she liked seven posts said to be Islamophobic and seriously offensive (those allegations were deleted following a successful Rule 17(2)(g) application) and that on 3 November 2023 she posted 'Because they are minorities and they have precedence over the whites these days' which was alleged to be motivated by and to demonstrate racial/religious hostility and to be seriously offensive.
Findings
The Tribunal found proved that the WhatsApp message 'typical of you Muslims to gaslight' was objectively Islamophobic and seriously offensive, and that messages portraying Dr A as antisemitic were seriously offensive. It found not proved the allegations of hostility to Palestinians or their supporters. It found that the X comment about Oxford admissions demonstrated racial hostility and was seriously offensive but was not motivated by racial or religious hostility. It concluded the conduct amounted to serious misconduct and that Dr Nonoo-Cohen's fitness to practise was impaired, citing the second and third limbs of the overarching objective. Insight was found to be incomplete; the risk of repetition was assessed as low.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Long unblemished 31-year career with no previous regulatory findings; no concerns about clinical practice or patient safety; expressions of regret and apology to Dr A and the Tribunal; full cooperation with the GMC investigation and the Tribunal process; relevant CPD including equality and diversity training, an Islamophobia webinar and review of GMC social media guidance; ongoing therapy as a more focused intervention; numerous positive testimonials from a wide range of professional and personal sources, including from members of the Muslim community; the holistic personal context including Mizrahi Jewish family history and the personal impact of the events of 7 October 2023.
Aggravating factors
Lack of complete insight, including a failure to fully accept that her words were seriously offensive and that the X comment demonstrated racial hostility; failure to work collaboratively with colleagues; misconduct that was discriminatory in nature and engaged characteristics protected by law; status as an experienced practitioner expected to understand professional standards; misconduct comprising two distinct incidents involving two different protected characteristics.
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.