Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS orders Dr Walid Ahmed's erasure following coercive-behaviour conviction
The tribunal found impaired fitness to practise following a conviction carrying a prison sentence of two years and eight months. It directed erasure and imposed an immediate suspension order.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 20 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 22 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 Walid Mohamed Galal AHMED, doctor (General Medical Council 7051555).
Decision date: 20 August 2026 · Hearing started 19 August 2026 and ended 20 August 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal directed Dr Walid Ahmed's removal from the medical register following his conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour. The criminal court had imposed a prison sentence of two years and eight months and a ten-year restraining order. The tribunal found impaired fitness to practise, no evidence of insight or remediation, and a high risk of repetition. It also imposed an immediate suspension order.
Charges
The tribunal considered Dr Ahmed's October 2025 conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour, for which he was sentenced to two years and eight months' imprisonment and made subject to a ten-year restraining order.
Findings
The tribunal found the conviction and sentence proved and concluded that fitness to practise was impaired. It found that prolonged controlling and coercive behaviour caused significant psychological harm, with no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition. Dr Ahmed did not attend or participate. The tribunal directed erasure and an immediate suspension order, finding lesser sanctions insufficient to protect the public, maintain confidence and uphold standards. It expressly acknowledged that there was no evidence of actual harm to patients from his clinical practice.
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.