Harith Alsiwan Altemimi v General Medical Council

Ms A: (1) Between 2017 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms A, whilst at work with her, in that you made sexualised comments to her in that: (1a) whilst Ms A was standing outside a room waiting to be interviewed, you made comments to Ms A about her clothing and her personal appearance; (1b) on a date in 2020, whilst Ms A was talking to a student nurse, as you walked past you said ‘don’t take her away [Ms A]’ or words to that effect.

Ms B: (2) Between 2018 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms B whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: (2a) you asked to take Ms B out for drinks or words to that effect; (2b) when the work team found out that Ms B was in a new personal relationship, you said to Ms B ‘Why have you got a partner? You should break up with him’ or words to that effect; (2c) from September 2019 onwards, you made comments to Ms B on her personal appearance and stated how attractive she was or words to that effect; (2d) from September 2019 onwards, in the presence of other colleagues you said to Ms B words to the effect of: (2di) ‘turn around so I can take a proper look at you’; (2dii) ‘turn around….you are beautiful’. (2e) on or around 26 November 2020 after the work team won an award at an awards night, you leant into Ms B and said to her on one or more occasion words to the effect of ‘we should be celebrating this in a jacuzzi together’.

Ms C: (3) Between 2019 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms C whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: (3a) on a date in 2019 when alone with Ms C you said to her ‘you should come and work with acute medicine; we are really fun, we are a bit naughty if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (3b) you said to Ms C ‘come for a drink with me; no one will find out’ or words to that effect; (3c) you said to Ms C ‘shall we go for a drink…just you and me’ or words to that effect; (3d) you made comments to a colleague about Ms C’s appearance in Ms C’s presence in a sexually suggestive manner whilst looking Ms C up and down; (3e) you said to Ms C ‘you are looking lovely’ or words to that effect, whilst looking her up and down; (3f) you asked Ms C to walk in front of you so that you could look at her bottom; (3g) on a date in November 2019, before the work team attended a presentation skills course at an hotel, you asked Ms C not to wear a bra at that course or words to that effect; (3h) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you’ or ‘I am going to fuck you’ or words to that effect; (3i) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you. I’m big and thick, it will be great’ or words to that effect.

Ms D: (4) On or around 5 December 2020 you behaved inappropriately and /or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms D whilst at work with her, in that you behaved in the following sexualised manner and/or made the following sexualised comments to Ms D, in that you: (4a) said to Ms D ‘come next door for a chat’ or words to that effect; (4b) took Ms D with you into an unoccupied hospital ward medical room and closed the door behind her; (4c) took off your surgical mask and said ‘this is what I look like’ or words to that effect; (4d) asked Ms D to take off her surgical mask or words to that effect; (4e) asked Ms D how old she was or words to that effect; (4f) said to Ms D ‘tell me all about you’ or words to that effect; (4g) said to Ms D that the work team went on nights out and that ‘we are wild if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (4h) said ‘Oh you’re the middle child, you must be naughty’ or words to that effect when Ms D told you about her family; (4i) on one or more occasion said to Ms D ‘are you naughty?’ or words to that effect; (4j) said to Ms D ‘how naughty are you out of 10? I’m a 9.5 out of 10’ or words to that effect; (4k) opened the door and said to Ms D that she could go or words to that effect.

Your conduct as described at paragraphs (1) to (4): (5a) was sexually motivated; (5b) amounted to sexual harassment pursuant to s.26 Equality Act 2010 in that you engaged in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, which had the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of Ms A, Ms B, Ms C and Ms D, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct.

In reaching its determination on sexual motivation, the Tribunal applied the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). The guidance from Justice Mostyn indicates that a sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Tribunal took into account the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and Leonard Ren-Yi Yong [2021] EWHC 52 (Admin) which considered sexual motivation and harassment where physical contact was not present for almost all of the allegations, and the conduct was in relation to colleagues rather than patients. The Tribunal also had regard to the case of Arunkalaivanan v General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 873 (Admin) which notes that it is important not to equate inappropriate conduct with sexually motivated conduct and that the Tribunal should consider whether there could be any other explanation for inappropriate conduct.

My attention was drawn to Sait v GMC [2019] EWHC 3279 (Admin) at §§9-19. In Sait, Mostyn J explained (at §10):

A person (A) harasses another (B) if – (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of – (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (2) A also harasses B if – (a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b). … (4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account – (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

The Tribunal explained that it had taken into account the cases of Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291 (CA) and Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724 (EAT) as referred to by Mr Mahmood in his submissions. Before me, reliance was placed on Reed v Stedman [1999] IRLR 299 (§§29-30 below). In Pemberton, Underhill LJ said this (at §88):

Ms C: (3) Between 2019 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms C whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: (3a) on a date in 2019 when alone with Ms C you said to her ‘you should come and work with acute medicine; we are really fun, we are a bit naughty if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (3b) you said to Ms C ‘come for a drink with me; no one will find out’ or words to that effect; (3c) you said to Ms C ‘shall we go for a drink…just you and me’ or words to that effect; … (3h) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you’ or ‘I am going to fuck you’ or words to that effect; (3i) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you. I’m big and thick, it will be great’ or words to that effect.

Ms D: (4) On or around 5 December 2020 you behaved inappropriately and /or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms D whilst at work with her, in that you behaved in the following sexualised manner and/or made the following sexualised comments to Ms D, in that you: (4a) said to Ms D ‘come next door for a chat’ or words to that effect; … (4c) took off your surgical mask and said ‘this is what I look like’ or words to that effect; … (4e) asked Ms D how old she was or words to that effect; (4f) said to Ms D ‘tell me all about you’ or words to that effect; (4g) said to Ms D that the work team went on nights out and that ‘we are wild if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (4h) said ‘Oh you’re the middle child, you must be naughty’ or words to that effect when Ms D told you about her family; (4i) on one or more occasion said to Ms D ‘are you naughty?’ or words to that effect; (4j) said to Ms D ‘how naughty are you out of 10? I’m a 9.5 out of 10’ or words to that effect; …

Your conduct as described [above] at paragraphs (3) and (4): (5a) was sexually motivated; (5b) amounted to sexual harassment pursuant to s.26 Equality Act 2010 in that you engaged in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, which had the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of … Ms C and Ms D, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

Grounds [G1]-[G4]. Ms C: Paragraphs (3a) and (5) of the Allegation.

Grounds [G5]-[G8]. Ms C: Paragraphs (3b), (3c) and (5) of the Allegation.

Grounds [G9]-[G13]. Ms C: Paragraphs (3h), (3i) and (5) of the Allegation.

Grounds [G14]-[G16]. Ms D: Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Allegation.

Ground [G16A]. Ms C and Ms D: Paragraphs (3a)-(3c), (3h)-(3i), (4g), (5a)-(5b) of the Allegation (“words to that effect”).

In reaching its decision on facts, the Tribunal has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the GMC and it is for the GMC to prove the Allegation. Dr Altemimi does not need to prove anything. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities, ie. whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred.

The Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) reminded the Tribunal that (i) it is entitled to draw proper inferences from the evidence, but it must not speculate. It should only draw an inference if it can safely exclude other possibilities as confirmed in Soni v GMC [2015] EWHC 364 (Admin) [at §61]. (ii) A serious allegation will require careful analysis of the evidence taking account of inherent probabilities or improbabilities of an event happening. However, there is no different standard of proof or especially cogent type of evidence required: Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) [at §22].

Cross-admissibility. 11. Mr Fish submitted that the allegations of all four women are cross-admissible and that this is a case that justifies consideration of both the propensity and coincidence approach to cross-admissibility. He referred the tribunal to part 13 of the Crown Court Compendium, which provides guidance as to how cross-admissibility should be approached. The issue of cross-admissibility or the unlikelihood of coincidence arises in this case (Freeman v Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim 1863). 12. The LQC advised the Tribunal that it must consider each count separately and, for cross-admissibility, referred the Tribunal to the direction set out in example 3, page 13-7 of the Crown Court Compendium Part 1 (June 2022).

Good character. 13. The Tribunal had in mind that Dr Altemimi was a man of good character in that he has no history of criminal convictions or cautions or adverse regulatory findings, and that he also provided testimonial evidence of his positive good character. This is not a defence, but it supports his credibility and it is relevant to the issue of whether he would have acted as alleged, especially in a case in which sexual misconduct is alleged.

As to inferences and what was “confirmed in Soni” (Determination §10), this is what Holroyde J said in Soni at §61:

Helpfully again – I’m referring mainly to Mr Mahmood, but as he set it out he’s referred to the case of Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) – in that case and also in the case of Khan v GMC tribunals were set out some very useful reminders of how evidence should be evaluated when considering the facts and, in particular, caution to be applied when considering the confidence and demeanour of a witness. I’ll give the following sort of helpful points from those two cases. In any approach to the fact finding stage care must be taken to avoid considering each part of the evidence in isolation. The Tribunal should consider the reliability of the evidence as a global picture and not in isolation.

Witness evidence is only one part of the evidence. Objective evidence, for example contemporaneous documents, should be considered first. Importantly, we often all of us believe that memories are much more faithful than they are. Two common errors are to suppose that the stronger and more vivid the recollection the more likely it is to be accurate; and the second error, the more confident a person is in their recollection the more likely it is to be accurate. They are fundamental errors that are untrue; that memories are not very reliable when it comes to oral evidence.

The confident delivery and demeanour of a witness’s evidence is not a reliable guide as to whether it’s the truth. The important question is whether the witness is reliable, not whether they are credible. In coming to credibility – a tribunal should not assess a witness's credibility exclusively on their demeanour when giving evidence. They should consider all of the evidence before them before coming to a conclusion about a witness's credibility and this could include conflicts in evidence with other witnesses, denials of the allegations and reasons why they could not be true. It is open to a tribunal not to rule out the whole of a witness's evidence based on credibility. Credibility is divisible.

First, the credibility of witnesses must take account of the unreliability of memory and should be considered and tested by reference to objective facts, and in particular as shown in contemporaneous documents. Where possible, factual findings should be based on objective facts as shown by contemporaneous documents. 18. Secondly, nevertheless, in assessing the reliability and credibility of witnesses, whilst there are different schools of thought, I consider that, if relevant, demeanour might in an appropriate case be a significant factor and the lower court is best placed to assess demeanour. 19. Thirdly, corroborating documentary evidence is not always required or indeed available. There may not be much or any such documentary evidence. In a case where the evidence consists of conflicting oral accounts, the court may properly place substantial reliance upon the oral evidence of the complainant (in preference to that of the defendant/appellant). There is no rule that corroboration of a … complainant’s evidence is required. 20. Fourthly, in a case where the complainant provides an oral account, and there is a flat denial from the other person concerned, and little or no independent evidence, it is commonplace for there to be inconsistency and confusion in some of the detail. Nevertheless the task of the court below is to consider whether the core allegations are true.

(1) The appeal is not a re-hearing in the sense that the appeal court starts afresh, without regard to what has gone before, or (save in exceptional circumstances) that it re-hears the evidence that was before the Tribunal. “Re-hearing” is an elastic notion, but generally indicates a more intensive process than a review. The test is not the “Wednesbury” test. (2) That said, the appellant has the burden of showing that the Tribunal’s decision is wrong or unjust. The Court will have regard to the decision of the lower court and give it “the weight that it deserves”. (3) A court asked to interfere with findings of fact made by a lower court or Tribunal may only do so in limited circumstances. Although this Court has the same documents as the Tribunal, the oral evidence is before this Court in the form of transcripts, rather than live evidence. The appeal Court must bear in mind the advantages which the Tribunal has of hearing and seeing the witnesses, and should be slow to interfere. (4) Where there is no question of a misdirection, an appellate court should not come to a different conclusion from the tribunal of fact unless it is satisfied that any advantage enjoyed by the lower court or tribunal by reason of seeing and hearing the witnesses could not be sufficient to explain or justify its conclusions. (5) In this context, the test for deciding whether a finding of fact is against the evidence is whether that finding exceeds the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement about the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence is possible. (6) The appeal Court should only draw an inference which differs from that of the Tribunal, or interfere with a finding of secondary fact, if there are objective grounds to justify this. (7) But the appeal Court will not defer to the judgment of the tribunal of fact more than is warranted by the circumstances; it may be satisfied that the tribunal has not taken proper advantage of the benefits it has, either because reasons given are not satisfactory, or because it unmistakably so appears from the evidence. Another way of putting the matter is that the appeal Court may interfere if the finding of fact is “so out of tune with the evidence properly read as to be unreasonable”.

My attention was also invited, in particular, to Byrne at §§11-16 and 21-27; and Shabir v GMC [2023] EWHC 1772 (Admin) at §§10-18.

The purpose of a duty to give reasons is to enable the losing party to know why they have lost and to allow them to consider whether to appeal. (ii) It will be satisfied if, having regard to the issues and the nature and content of the evidence, reasons for the decision are apparent, either because they are set out in terms or because they can readily be inferred from the overall form and content of the decision. (iii) There is no duty on a tribunal, in giving reasons, to deal with every argument made in submissions. (iv) In a straightforward case, setting out the facts to be proved and finding them proved or not will generally be sufficient both to demonstrate to the parties why they have won or lost and to explain to any appellate tribunal the facts found. (v) Where the case is not straightforward and can properly be described as “exceptional”, the position will be different: a few sentences dealing with “salient issues” may be essential. (vi) Specific reasons for disbelieving a practitioner are not required in every case that is not straightforward. (vii) Where a Tribunal’s stated reasons are not clear, the court should look at the underlying materials to seek to understand its reasoning and to identify reasons which cogently justify the decision. An appeal should not be allowed on grounds of inadequacy of reasons unless, even with the benefit of knowledge of the evidence and submissions made below, it is not possible for the appeal court to understand why the tribunal reach the decision it did.

The Tribunal has considered each outstanding paragraph of the Allegation separately and has evaluated the evidence in order to make its findings on the facts. 17. The Tribunal was mindful that this Allegation stemmed from a complaint made by Ms D. Other matters arose in the course of the investigation which predated the complaint made by Ms D. This led to the paragraphs in the Allegation relating to Ms A, Ms B, and Ms C. The Tribunal considered the Allegation in relation to Ms D first. It then considered the cross-admissibility of this matter in relation to the other paragraphs of the Allegation. The Tribunal also considered the cross-admissibility of other matters. It has however, followed the usual format for a determination and recorded its decision on each paragraph in the order of the Allegation.

There has been no challenge on this appeal to the Tribunal having taken this approach. I agree with Mr Mant that it makes best sense on this appeal to start with Ms D.

… you: (4a) said to Ms D ‘come next door for a chat’ or words to that effect; … (4c) took off your surgical mask and said ‘this is what I look like’ or words to that effect; … (4e) asked Ms D how old she was or words to that effect; (4f) said to Ms D ‘tell me all about you’ or words to that effect; (4g) said to Ms D that the work team went on nights out and that ‘we are wild if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (4h) said ‘Oh you’re the middle child, you must be naughty’ or words to that effect when Ms D told you about her family; (4i) on one or more occasion said to Ms D ‘are you naughty?’ or words to that effect; (4j) said to Ms D ‘how naughty are you out of 10? I’m a 9.5 out of 10’ or words to that effect ….

… you: b. took Ms D with you into an unoccupied hospital ward medical room and closed the door behind her; … d. asked Ms D to take off her surgical mask or words to that effect; … k. opened the door and said to Ms D that she could go or words to that effect.

The Tribunal explained why these were found not proved. As to Paragraph (4b), Ms D accepted in cross-examination that – although the Appellant took her into an unoccupied hospital ward medical room and the door closed behind her – it could have been a self-closing fire door, as the Appellant said and as was shown in photographs which he produced. As to Paragraph (4d), Ms D’s written and oral evidence was that she took her mask off, not that the Appellant asked her to take it off. As to Paragraph (4k), Ms D’s written and oral evidence was that she left the room, not that the Appellant said she could go. It was for these reasons that the primary facts alleged by the GMC in these Paragraphs were found not proved.

The Tribunal next considered the matters admitted and proved, individually and collectively, in relation to Dr Altemimi’s interaction with Ms D. In summary Dr Altemimi approached Ms D whilst she was on duty observing patients. He had a brief conversation with her in a corridor and then asked her into a room on their own to continue the conversation. When in the room he briefly lowered his mask to show his face and she responded by briefly lowering her mask. Dr Altemimi and Ms D sat 2m apart and there was no physical contact between them. Dr Altemimi asked Ms D how old she was. He then asked Ms D to tell him all about her. Dr Altemimi told Ms D that the work team went on nights out and that we are wild if you know what I mean, or words to that effect. In response to Ms B saying that she had siblings, Dr Altemimi responded by saying that as a middle child she must be naughty. He repeated the word ‘naughty’ on more than one occasion, asked Ms B to grade herself on a scale of 1:10 on how naughty she was, and then told Ms D that he graded himself as 9.5. At this stage Ms D left.

In his case summary for the disciplinary hearing, Dr Altemimi explained, “the use of the word naughty was in the context of the “middle child” always being ‘’naughty’’ in a mischievous way, and absolutely not in a sexual context. The middle child is often stereotyped as being naughty in my culture and this is also from my personal experience of having 2 siblings and being the father of 3 boys. However, thinking about the conversation from SS’s perspective, I realised how the word “naughty” may have come across to her and been misconstrued as having a sexual meaning. I am sincerely sorry. I am devastated, as I never intended to make anyone feel unsafe or at unease at work.”

The Tribunal had regard to Ms D’s GMC statement: “…he said, ‘Oh you’re the middle child, you must be naughty’. I was totally shocked and laughed out. He kept asking me if I was naughty and to tell him how naughty I was on a scale of one to ten, so I answered six and Dr A said he was a nine point five. Dr A then asked if I needed help or had any questions. I made my excuses and left. I think Dr A could tell that I was uncomfortable and wanted to leave. I was really embarrassed and shocked and didn’t know what to think. It was totally unexpected. I had never been spoken to like this by any doctor.”

The Tribunal considered the use of the word ‘naughty’ and the context in which it was used. The Tribunal did not accept that … Dr Altemimi’s use of the word ‘naughty’ used in other context as given in evidence by some witnesses is was [sic] transferable to this specific situation. His use of the word ‘naughty’ when referring to failing to complete notes was a completely different situation. Nor did the Tribunal accept that Dr Altemimi’s used the word ‘naughty’ to his children is applicable to this situation. Ms D was a student nurse. Dr Altemimi was a person in a position of authority who had asked Ms B into a room without a chaperone. The Tribunal did not find it plausible that Dr Altemimi did not know that his repeated questioning of a nurse about how naughty she was, was not a sexualised conversation.

Having concluded that this aspect of the interaction was sexualised the Tribunal has then considered other aspects of the interaction in context. The Tribunal took into account the entirety of the interaction as set out in Ms D’s handwritten statement. In the Tribunal's analysis, Ms D’s handwritten statement made it clear that there was a degree of persistence in Dr Altemimi’s focus on Ms D’s naughtiness. Although specific paragraphs of the Allegation such as asking Ms D how old she was may individually not be considered sexualised, the Tribunal finds that it was more likely than not that they take on a very different meaning when considered in totality.

The Tribunal having considered all of the evidence in context was of the view
that Dr Altemimi’s behaviour towards Ms D was sexualised as were his comments.

Ms D’s evidence regarding her meeting with Dr Altemimi was to a large degree unchallenged. In her oral evidence she was unequivocal in her description of Dr Altemimi’s use of the word ‘naughty’ as sexual. Dr Altemimi has submitted that there was an innocent motive for his comments. It was possible that this was the case when the word was first used in relation to middle child; however, this possibility was stretched when the conversation continues with the word ‘naughty’ repeated on a number of occasions with Ms D being asked to grade herself on scale of one to ten and Dr Altemimi saying that he was 9.5. This evidence coupled with the circumstances in which the conversation took place led the Tribunal to the conclusion that it was more likely than not that Dr Altemimi had a sexual motivation in saying what he did. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that regarding Paragraph (5a) of the allegation, Dr Altemimi’s conduct was sexually motivated as it related to Paragraph (4).

Ms D’s reaction to her Dr Altemimi’s conduct was corroborated by Ms Selwood’s evidence, who said in her witness statement, “I was in the side room caring for the patient for around 15 minutes and I was taking off my PPE in another room off the side room when [Ms D] came back onto the ward. She looked distraught and upset. Her face looked like it was in total shock. Once I’d washed my hands, I went up to her and asked if she was ok. I remember her saying, ‘I can’t believe what happened’.”

In considering that effect Dr Altemimi’s behaviour had on Ms D, the Tribunal took into account Ms D’s perception of his conduct. The Tribunal referred again to her comment in her witness statement where she said, “He [Dr Altemimi] kept asking me if I was naughty and to tell him how naughty I was on a scale of one to ten, so I answered six and Dr A said he was a nine point five. Dr A then asked if I needed help or had any questions. I made my excuses and left. I think Dr A could tell that I was uncomfortable and wanted to leave. I was really embarrassed and shocked and didn’t know what to think. It was totally unexpected. I had never been spoken to like this by any doctor.”

The Tribunal has determined that Dr Altemimi’s comments to Ms D were sexualised and that his motivation was sexual. It was clear from Ms D’s evidence that Dr Altemimi’s conduct was unwanted. The Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Altemimi engaged in unwanted conduct with Ms D and the conduct was of a sexual nature.

The Tribunal had regard to the fact that, when Ms D had reported Dr Altemimi’s behaviour to Ms Bhogall during her meeting, she provided Ms Bhogall with her handwritten account of the incident. She also said, “During the meeting, I think I said that I wasn’t comfortable coming back to work at the hospital. Andrea said it was a shame as I had done all my placements there. After this meeting Andrea told my ward that I would be having the rest of the day off work and that I wouldn’t be back for my next shift that week. After speaking to Andrea on 10 December 2020, the decision was made for me to finish my placements at Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital. My last day of work at the hospital was 10 December 2020.”

The Tribunal considered Ms D’s evidence regarding her perception of Dr Altemimi’s conduct.

The Tribunal considered that Dr Altemimi’s conduct towards Ms D had left her so uncomfortable that she felt unable to continue to work in the same hospital as him. It was clear from her evidence that Ms D found Dr Altemimi’s conduct embarrassing, shocking, unwanted and unacceptable. As a result of her interaction with Dr Altemimi she said was not comfortable coming back to the hospital to work. It was clear from this that Ms D perceived herself to have suffered from the effect of Dr Altemimi’s conduct in that he had created an adverse environment for her, which was degrading, humiliating, and offensive for her.

The Tribunal took into account all of the circumstances of Ms D’s interaction with Dr Altemimi and considered whether it was reasonable for Dr Altemimi’s conduct to have that effect. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonable for Ms D to consider that the effect of Dr Altemimi’s conduct was to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.

Subsequently the Tribunal found Paragraph 5(b) of the Allegation proved in relation to Ms D.

As to whether the conduct is unwelcome, there may well be difficult factual issues to resolve. In general terms, some conduct, if not expressly invited, could properly be described as unwelcome. A woman does not, for example, have to make it clear in advance that she does not want to be touched in a sexual manner. At the lower end of the scale, a woman may appear, objectively, to be unduly sensitive to what might otherwise be regarded as unexceptional behaviour. But because it is for each person to define their own levels of acceptance, the question would then be whether by words or conduct she had made it clear that she found such conduct unwelcome.

The reference in Reed to conduct at “the lower end of the scale” was to what would be, “objectively”, an “unduly sensitive” reaction to “unexceptional” behaviour. In the present case, there was nothing, objectively, unexceptional about the sexualised behaviour towards Ms D. And there was nothing, objectively, unduly sensitive in it being unwanted by Ms D. Here, the “factual issue” was “resolved”. The Tribunal heard and considered the evidence of Ms D – who was cross-examined – as to the experience for her and its implications. The Tribunal made a series of clear and cogent findings based on that evidence. That included after the cross-examination of Ms D and Ms D’s mother, about Ms D’s fear of getting into trouble (§24 above). The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s conduct towards Ms D had left her so uncomfortable that she felt unable to continue to work in the same hospital as him; that she found that conduct embarrassing, shocking, unwanted and unacceptable; that she perceived herself to have suffered from the effect of that conduct in that he had created an “adverse environment for her”, which was “degrading, humiliating, and offensive for her”. The Tribunal went on to find that it was “reasonable” for Ms D to consider that the effect of the Appellant’s conduct was to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. That conclusion was reached taking account, rightly, of all the circumstances of the interaction. The Tribunal had described these already. As a first interaction, and with the massive power imbalance, a senior consultant approaches a young student nurse on duty watching her patients, asks her into a room on their own, then asks persistent sexualised questions, making her uncomfortable, until she left the room. This was not friendliness or an ‘informal interview’. It was not ‘joshing’. It was reasonable for her to perceive that it created for her an adverse environment, which was for her degrading, humiliating, and offensive. No further reasons were needed to understand this conclusion, which is not wrong. In my judgment, the Tribunal was not wrong in its findings; nor in its approach; and nor were its reasons inadequate. I cannot accept Grounds [G16a]-[G16c].

Ms B: (2) Between 2018 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms B whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: … (2e) on or around 26 November 2020 after the work team won an award at an awards night, you leant into Ms B and said to her on one or more occasion words to the effect of ‘we should be celebrating this in a jacuzzi together’.

It was not disputed that Dr Altemimi sat behind Ms B at the Award ceremony. In her interview, Ms B stated, ‘Dr Altemimi sat behind me. Our team won an award and afterwards he leant in and whispered to me “We should be celebrating this in a Jacuzzi together”. There were several comments that evening along the same lines, mostly about celebrating in a Jacuzzi together.’

In her statement Ms B said, ‘Dr Altemimi was sitting behind me and just as everyone was getting up to leave, he leaned in towards me and whispered in my ear, ‘We should be celebrating this in a jacuzzi together’. Dr Altemimi repeated this a few times. No one overheard this. I ignored him and he didn’t have any reaction.’

The Tribunal reminded itself of the evidence of Ms Al-Juboori, that she watched the event on a WhatsApp video call from Dr Altemimi and, when questioned by the Tribunal, she stated that she saw nothing untoward and did not hear Dr Altemimi say the word “Jacuzzi.”

The Tribunal reminded itself of the statement of Ms C, “I clarify that I remember that (Ms B) told me about a comment Dr Altemimi made to her at an awards ceremony in November 2020. I was sitting next to (Ms B) at the ceremony, and I saw Dr Altemimi whisper in her ear as he was sitting behind her and I asked her what he had said and she told me that he said, ‘I wish we could be celebrating in a jacuzzi’. I was (Ms B’s) line manager at the time, so I did ask her whether she wanted to do anything about it and she said no as she was worried saying something would affect her role.”

The Tribunal considered the photograph provided of the room where the award ceremony was watched, which was not disputed by the parties. This event took place during the Covid pandemic and individuals were required to wear masks and comply with social distancing rules. Alternate rows and columns of chairs had been removed to allow for social distancing. Ms B was sitting in the row in front of Dr Altemimi, but to his right-hand side and some distance away. Ms C was sitting in a row on the other side of the room.

The Tribunal was concerned by the evidence of Ms C, who said that she was sitting next to Ms B. This was not indicated by the agreed seating plan and although she said in her oral evidence that she may have moved during the evening, there was no evidence to corroborate this. In addition, Ms B did not say that Ms C was sitting next to her. In fact, she said nobody overheard what was said.

The Tribunal was concerned, as set out above, that Ms B and Ms C were friends and had discussed matters between themselves. The Tribunal considered the evidence of both Ms B and Ms C as unreliable with regard to events on the award evening. The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence before it and concludes that it was highly unlikely that Dr Altemimi was able to whisper in Ms B’s ear on one occasion, let alone more than one occasion (as Ms B claimed in her interview and statement), given the social distancing of this event. Subsequently, the Tribunal found Paragraph 2(e) of the Allegation not proved.

Ms C: (3) Between 2019 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms C whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: … (3d) you made comments to a colleague about Ms C’s appearance in Ms C’s presence in a sexually suggestive manner whilst looking Ms C up and down; (3e) you said to Ms C ‘you are looking lovely’ or words to that effect, whilst looking her up and down; (3f) you asked Ms C to walk in front of you so that you could look at her bottom; (3g) on a date in November 2019, before the work team attended a presentation skills course at an hotel, you asked Ms C not to wear a bra at that course or words to that effect;…

Paragraph (3d) and (3e):

In her interview, Ms C said: “…what didn’t stop were the inappropriate comments about my appearance, sexually suggestive tones to the conversation.” … It was about a year ago this was going on. The initial event was Sept/Oct 2019 and the continued comments was around that time. Comments about my appearance but more about how it was said. “You are looking lovely” but looking you up and down in what I feel was an inappropriate way.”

In her GMC statement, Ms C stated: “Dr Altemimi’s inappropriate comments to me started quite soon after I started the Deputy DGM role in October 2019.” … “I didn’t appreciate Dr Altemimi’s comments. I was new to the role and would have to work closely with him. I didn’t want to make things difficult. If Dr Altemimi made an inappropriate comment, I would laugh it off or make a joke of it…Alongside the comments, I would catch Dr Altemimi giving me seedy looks, smirking, and looking me up and down. It was very obvious to me that Dr Altemimi’s eyes were going up and down my body.”

In his GMC statement, Dr Altemimi stated, “I would have made comments as I’ve described doing above with lots of colleagues about appearance, but I strongly deny having looked her up and down…”

The Tribunal has heard witnesses that say that the environment at the hospital was one where comments on colleagues’ appearances by clinicians and managers were commonplace and not objected to. Witnesses also say that such comments were not sexualised. The Tribunal did not accept that this practice was appropriate or professional, even though it was commonplace. Ms C’s comments that she would catch Dr Altemimi giving her seedy looks, smirking, and looking her up and down are very subjective and non-specific. The Tribunal accepts that Dr Altemimi most likely did comment on Ms C’s appearance, but there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that comments were made in a sexually suggestive manner whilst looking Ms C up and down. The Tribunal found paragraphs (3d) and (3e) of the Allegation not proved.

Paragraph (3f):

In the interview, Ms C stated to Mr Youngman, “If we were walking to a meeting, he would ask me to walk in front of him. I said why and there would be a smirking look. I told him “I’m not walking in front of you so you can look at my bum”.

The Tribunal has taken into account that in her interview and in her statement, Ms C said that Dr Altemimi asked her to walk in front of him on many occasions. In her oral evidence, she described a single occasion, and when questioned by the Tribunal, she clarified that her statement about this occurring more than once was an error and it had in fact only occurred once.

The Tribunal had noted that, even by her own evidence, the word “bum” was only used by Ms C and not Dr Altemimi. There was no evidence to support the allegation that Dr Altemimi said that he wanted to ‘look at Ms C’s bottom’. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that Dr Altemimi asked Ms C to walk in front of him or that if he had that his motivation was to look at her bottom. The Tribunal found Paragraph (3f) of the Allegation not proved.

Paragraph (3g):

The Tribunal noted that the following was added as additional information following Ms C’s initial interview on 12 January 2021, “Dr Altemimi, myself and some other members of the Acute Medicine team attended a presentation skills course at the Duke’s Head Hotel in King’s Lynn, this was in November 2019. Before the course Dr Altemimi asked me not to wear a bra. I was really taken aback by the comment and tried to laugh it off.”

The Tribunal notes that Dr Altemimi denies this allegation.

The Tribunal drew no inference from the fact that this Allegation was added as a post-script to the notes of the second interview. However, the Tribunal was concerned that Ms C provided limited information about this allegation and did not refer to it in her statement. In the circumstances, and taking account of Dr Altemimi’s denial, the Tribunal did not conclude it was more likely than not that this happened.

The Tribunal therefore found Paragraph (3g) of the Allegation not proved.

Just before I leave these overarching points, there is one point that I think that I do need to just make, if I may. The point made by my learned friend [Mr Fish], again entirely understandably, when he was cross-examining my client was – he presented a binary position, “Are you suggesting Ms C is a liar; are you suggesting Ms B is a liar?” Of course Dr Altemimi didn’t agree with the comments and the corollary of that disagreement is that he does believe the allegations have been made up, particularly by Ms C. He does obviously – and I say this very openly – the allegations are false that have been made by Ms C, those graphic allegations; but that does not mean that this Tribunal must necessarily adopt a binary position in its approach to the evidence. There are three possibilities in these kinds of cases always. One is, you find the facts proven. The other is that you find the facts unproven. The third possibility is that you find the facts unproven and the witnesses lied. You don't need to go to the third possibility. The GMC carry the burden of establishing their case. If you conclude that based on the submissions that I made that the evidence of Ms C is unreliable that is not necessarily the same as saying that you necessarily have found or must find that she lied. You can exercise mental gymnastics to say that the burden has not been satisfied. That's the alternative way, perhaps even a more palatable way, but I mention that point as a possibility. Of course we maintain the point that Ms C has not told the truth in relation to the serious allegations, but that doesn't mean that you have to accept what I say or adopt the binary position advocated by the GMC.

Ms C: (3) Between 2019 and 2020 you behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a colleague Ms C whilst at work with her, in that on one or more occasion you made sexualised comments to her, including: (3a) on a date in 2019 when alone with Ms C you said to her ‘you should come and work with acute medicine; we are really fun, we are a bit naughty if you know what I mean’ or words to that effect; (3b) you said to Ms C ‘come for a drink with me; no one will find out’ or words to that effect; (3c) you said to Ms C ‘shall we go for a drink…just you and me’ or words to that effect; … (3h) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you’ or ‘I am going to fuck you’ or words to that effect; (3i) you said to Ms C ‘I want to fuck you. I’m big and thick, it will be great’ or words to that effect.

The Grounds of Appeal address Paragraph (3a); then (3b) and (3c) together; and finally (3h) and (3i) together. So will I.

During her interview with Mr Youngman on 12 January 2021, Ms C stated “I know the details of the student nurse complaint as I am part of the divisional leadership team so was involved in receiving her concern. …The reason I decided to speak up was because the detail in the letter rang true to a conversation with me. Almost identical to when I came back in 2019. I was either in the office or my own or in the quiet room. He said to me “You should come and work with acute medicine. We are really fun, we are a bit naughty if you know what I mean”. I am sure that was the comment that rang true, along those lines.”

The Tribunal reminded itself that Ms C was made aware of Ms D allegation, including the use of the word “naughty”. In her statement, Ms C stated “The student nurse’s statement was read out in the room. On hearing the words used by the student nurse it just struck a chord. I thought, ‘I’ve heard those words before’. As with the student nurse, Dr Altemimi called her into a room on her own and asked her some questions and said that the team were ‘a bit naughty, if you know what I mean’. This was exactly what he had said to me with a nod and a wink.”

The Tribunal noted that there was no reference to a “nod and a wink” during the interview.

In his interview, Dr A stated that, had he used the word “naughty” it would not have been in a sexualised way. In his statement, Dr A stated, “I have no recollection of this, but I accept that I might have said to Ms C something like “you should come and work with acute medicine; we are really fun, we are a bit naughty”. English is not my first language and one translation in Arabic, which was my understanding and intention at the time, is that a naughty person is a person who doesn’t listen or is silly, with no sexual undertones. I’ve since stopped using this word having understood its common English meanings.” Dr Altemimi denied using the words “if you know what I mean”.

The Tribunal considered whether Ms C’s evidence had been influenced by what she knew of Ms D’s complaint. It was clear that Ms D’s account triggered a memory in Ms C. That was acknowledged in her evidence. There was an inconsistency in her evidence regarding her comment about a nod and a wink, as this was not mentioned in her interview. The Tribunal did not consider this inconsistency to be material. Dr Altemimi accepted the possibility that he may have said the word naughty. He did not accept that he said if you know what I mean or that his comment was sexualised.

The Tribunal considered the circumstances of Ms C, at the times that the words were used by Dr Altemimi. She was new to her job and in her probationary period. She said that she was in a room on her own with Dr Altemimi when he spoke with her. The Tribunal did consider the allegation made by Ms D and concluded that the situations of Ms C and Ms D were very similar. Having considered the evidence and the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that it was more likely than not that Dr Altemimi said, “we are a bit naughty, if you know what I mean”, or words to that effect and that his comment in the particular context in which it was said were sexualised.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found Paragraph 3(a) of the Allegation proved.

On hearing the words used by the student nurse it just struck a chord. I thought, ‘I’ve heard those words before’. As with the student nurse, Dr Altemimi called her into a room on her own and asked her some questions and said that the team were ‘a bit naughty, if you know what I mean’. This was exactly what he had said to me with a nod and a wink. It made me think, ‘How many more people has Dr Altemimi had this conversation with?’ This made me feel uncomfortable as I hadn’t reported this and then someone else had a similar experience and they were brave enough to come forward.

The Tribunal was not wrong to draw the inference – with the benefit of oral evidence and cross-examination – that Ms C was describing a conversation while she was “in a room on her own with Dr Altemimi”. The phrase “when alone with Ms C” was an express part of Paragraph (3a) of the Allegation. The Appellant and his Counsel did not, successfully or otherwise, contest that aspect (“when alone with Ms C”) and Ms C was not cross-examined about there being anyone else in the quiet room. The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s own evidence that he may have said “naughty”. The Tribunal had found that the Appellant had said “if you know what I mean” when describing his team (as “wild”) to the newcomer Ms D, which had been supported by her note written later that same day. In my judgment, the Tribunal was not wrong in finding that the Appellant said “naughty”, and in finding that he said “if you know what I mean” (or words to that effect). It was not wrong in its approach. Nor was its reasoning inadequate. I cannot accept Grounds [G1a] or [G1c].

When I first moved to the team Dr Altemimi said we are a really friendly team and we have social nights out and we are having one this week and you should come along.

The Tribunal failed to understand that this was the conversation where “naughty” and “if you know what I mean” were said by Ms C to have been used by the Appellant. Once the Poco Lounge context is understood, this was plainly a friendly, welcoming invitation, from a team leader interested in recruitment and retention, to a team social night out. The word “naughty” has – and in that context and those circumstances retained – its primary ordinary and natural meaning: mischievous; misbehaved. The phrase “if you know what I mean” does not undermine that. It was impossible for the Tribunal to exclude innocent, non-sexualised explanation, and the Tribunal gave no reasons for doing so.

In her interview with Mr Youngman, Ms C said, ‘When I first moved to the team Dr Altemimi said we are a really friendly team and we have social nights out and we are having one this week and you should come along. I was hesitant because when I am new to a team I try and keep my distance until I have worked people out. He was quite persistent about me coming to the team night out. On the day I said to him that I might not be able to make it. He said I should come it would be good to meet the team so I felt a bit of pressure to go. I was expecting a wide group nurses, managers and doctors and junior doctors to be there- a broad group. I got to the Poco Lounge in Kings Lynn and it was just Dr Altemimi and a few junior doctors. I felt quite uncomfortable as I can feel anxious in social situations with people I don’t know. All the juniors were really lovely and it was fine. After that Dr Altemimi kept saying “shall we go for a drink”. I asked who with-did he mean like last time? “No come and let’s go for a drink”. I kept saying no you’re married and I am not interested. That became quite persistent. It would normally happen at the end of our informal meetings. “Come for a drink with me. No one will find out.”’

In her GMC statement, Ms C stated that, following a social occasion in late 2019 when Dr Altemimi (and other colleagues) were present, “…Dr Altemimi made comments like, ‘Shall we go for a drink?’ I’d say, ‘I’m not interested. You’re married.’ I said, ‘What you mean for work drinks with everyone?’ and he would say, ‘No, just you and me.’ Dr Altemimi would say, ‘Come on. No one will find out’ in a jokey way and I’d say, ‘No. I have another meeting’ just to get away from him and the awkward situation. These comments were persistent and went on for a couple of months until I eventually had to say, ‘No. It’s not happening’.”

In his statement, Dr Altemimi stated, “I invited Ms C for drinks just as I did many other team members as described above, and I only ever meant for a coffee onsite. I would not have said “no-one will find out” because there was nothing for people to find out, and I would not have said “just you and me”.”

The Tribunal considered that the evidence to support the suggestion that Dr Altemimi was referring to drinks outside the hospital, rather than coffee when he talked about drinks [were] the particular words used were “no one will find out” and “just you and me” or words to that effect.

Ms C’s evidence was that Dr Altemimi first invited her to drinks with colleagues at the Poco Lounge in Kings Lynn and not the coffee shop in the hospital. The Poco Lounge is a bar and restaurant. Subsequent requests by Dr Altemimi to go for drinks were made following the drinks at the Poco Lounge. The Tribunal has heard from witnesses that Dr Altemimi and others frequently met in the coffee shop in the hospital. This was confirmed in the WhatsApp exchanges between Dr Altemimi and Ms C. However, the alleged comments were an entirely different situation and occurred at the start of Ms C’s work at the hospital. Ms C subsequently was a frequent participant in visits to the hospital coffee shop with Dr Altemimi and other colleagues and would not, in the Tribunal’s judgement, have mistaken invitations for coffee with drinks outside of the hospital. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was more likely than not that Dr Altemimi did invite Ms C for drinks outside of the hospital and that he did say “no one will find out” and “just you and me” or words to that effect. The Tribunal also finds that his comments were sexualised.

The Tribunal subsequently found Paragraphs (3b) and (3c) of the Allegation proved.

In her subsequent interview with Mr Youngman on 21 January 2021, Ms C stated: “I didn’t feel that I said everything I should at the last interview. I’m not good at talking, I tend to box things away. I feel I need to give additional information. … Some comments that Dr Altemimi has said that made me feel uncomfortable. On more than one occasion he has whispered in my ear “I want to fuck you” or “I am going to fuck you. … Because it made me feel so uncomfortable I would freeze and then try and laugh it off. Personally, when I feel really uncomfortable in a situation my default response is to try and make a joke to make me feel less uncomfortable. With Dr Altemimi it’s always easier to try and laugh it off or make a joke of the comments as he can become quite difficult to work with when he is challenged.… One I can place because I remember where I was at the time. It was during the first wave of the pandemic last year…. This was around June last year. I was sitting at a desk doing some work, Dr Altemimi and Dr Mathi came in to see me. They were chatting and then another Consultant came in to talk to Dr Mathi and at that point, Dr Altemimi who was sitting in a chair whispered in my ear and said these things. The other times I think were in his office and mine … it was similar saying “I want to fuck you, I’m big and thick it will be great.”

In her GMC statement, Ms C stated, “… I was working over the weekend at the Covid operations centre and based in an office on my own. Dr Altemimi and Dr Mathi came in to say hello to me… Dr K then came into the office and spoke with Dr Mathi on the other side of the room. Dr Altemimi sat down next to me and kept getting closer and closer to me. I kept trying to move away and he was just talking generally about work and then out of the blue, he leaned right in and whispered into my ear, ‘I want to fuck you’ or something very similar. He repeated the same thing once more. My body language changed immediately, and I froze. I turned my head away. I was shocked and appalled. I didn’t say anything. I’m not sure whether Dr K or Dr Mathi heard what Dr Altemimi had said to me as they were a little distance away and in the middle of their own conversation.”

When this was put to Dr Altemimi by Mr Youngman, the doctor said, “This is a shock to me. Firstly I have no recall of that. This is becoming a bit weird. I do not talk in that kind of explicit language. It is an embarrassment. This is disgusting.”

The Tribunal was assisted by the statement of Dr Mathialagan, “…I was standing in the doorway of the office and Ms C was on the other side of the office sitting at a desk, around five to six metres away. I saw Dr Altemimi lean in close to Ms C’s ear and give her a hug but whatever he was saying to her she didn’t seem upset and her body language did not show that she was upset on the outside. I was embarrassed at what I was seeing because Ms C smiled and moved away from Dr Altemimi. I wasn’t sure what to make of it. … I remember this particular incident as there were just the three of us in the room.”

In his interview Dr Mathialagan said: “… [Ms C] was seated at the computer and suddenly Harith went from standing by the doorway and he went and spoke to her very closely and I think he gave her a hug. I didn’t hear what he said. NY: Is that usual for him to give [Ms C] a hug? RM: I hadn’t seen it before. It did feel a bit unusual as to how it happened. NY: Did you hear what he said to her? RM: No. We were talking openly before this happened. What he said close to her I did not hear. He was close to her ear. I couldn’t hear it. NY Did [Ms C] seem surprised or upset by anything? RM: I was a bit embarrassed. Whether [Ms C] was upset I don’t know.”

The Tribunal reminded itself of the submissions of Mr Mahmood, “On 21.1.21 Ms C then attended a second interview and immediately launched into the most serious allegations, claiming that extremely graphic comments had been made to her on at least 4 occasions (3 in relation to “I want to fuck you”, etc and an earlier comment in 2019 about not wearing a bra). This was not a case of trying to “fully articulate her [previous] concerns” but the launching of brand new allegations of the most serious kind, which had never been made before despite numerous opportunities to do so.”

Mr Fish submitted, “The point is likely to be made (and it is accepted the Tribunal should consider this) that the most serious allegations did not emerge until the second trust interview. This is, of course, correct. Ms C dealt with and explained how difficult and embarrassing it was to discuss these matters. That is consistent with the trust interviews themselves when Ms C referred to not feeling comfortable talking about feelings or past experiences and the fear that she would not be believed… and how anxious she was about the whole process. Ms C also referred to trying to forget.”

The Tribunal has considered the reliability of Ms C’s evidence in light of the submissions made by Mr Mahmood. It has also considered whether her evidence was influenced in any way by her discussions with Ms B. The Tribunal accepted that Ms C would have found it difficult and embarrassing to discuss these matters and drew no inference from the fact that she asked for a second interview or from the reasons she gave in her email when she requested it. The Tribunal was mindful that Dr Altemimi was unequivocal in his denial of these allegations. The Tribunal recognises that in allegations such as this there was often little evidence except what was said by the parties involved. Ms C says that the words were whispered in her ear on more than one occasion. Although he did not hear what was said, Dr Mathialagan did say that in June 2020 he saw Dr Altemimi lean in close to Ms C’s ear and speak to her when they were in the COVID office. There are basic differences between his statement and his interview. When interviewed he did not say that Ms C smiled, nor did he say that Ms C was not upset. However, he did give evidence that he witnessed the interaction between Ms C and Dr Altemimi.

Having considered the evidence and the circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied that it was more likely than not that Dr Altemimi acted towards Ms C as set out in paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of the Allegation and that his comments were sexualised.

91.The Tribunal has determined that Paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of the Allegation are proved

Dr Altemimi accepted that he may have used the word ‘naughty ’ when talking with Ms C. He denies other words and denies sexual motivation. The Tribunal has found that Dr Altemimi’s comments as set out in paragraphs (3a), (3b), (3c), (3g), (3h), and (3i) of the Allegation were sexualised. The comments were covert in that they were not said in front of others, or they were whispered in her ear so that others could not hear. This evidence, coupled with the circumstances in which the conversations took place, led the Tribunal to the conclusion that it was more likely than not that Dr Altemimi had a sexual motivation in saying what he did. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal found that Dr Altemimi’s conduct was sexually motivated as it related to Paragraph (3).

The Tribunal has determined that Dr Altemimi’s comments to Ms C were sexualised and that his motivation was sexual. In her interview Ms C said: ‘After that Dr Altemimi kept saying “shall we go for a drink”. I asked who with – did he mean like last time? “No come and let’s go for a drink”. I kept saying no you’re married and I am not interested…That became quite persistent. It would normally happen at the end of our informal meetings. “Come for a drink with me. No one will find out.” You never know how to handle it. Laugh it off or make a joke. The first few times it was saying no in a jokey way. It got to a point where I had to say I’m not interested and it’s not going to happen. After that the persistence did stop but what didn’t stop were the inappropriate comments about my appearance, sexually suggestive tones to the conversation. Some comments that Dr Altemimi has said that made me feel uncomfortable. On more than one occasion he has whispered in my ear “I want to fuck you” or “I am going to fuck you.” Because it made me feel so uncomfortable I would freeze and then try and laugh it off. Personally, when I feel really uncomfortable in a situation my default response is to try and make a joke to make me feel less uncomfortable. With Dr Altemimi it’s always easier to try and laugh it off or make a joke of the comments as he can become quite difficult to work with when he is challenged. Q. When he whispered in your ear, how close was he? Could you feel his breath? A. Yes he was so close I could feel his breath. When I was in the COVID room I tried to turn my head away but he kept coming closer to whisper in my ear.’

In her statement Ms C said “My responses may not have been serious enough for Dr Altemimi to understand that I didn’t like these comments and didn’t want them, but this was my way of dealing with them. Again, Dr Altemimi was very persistent with this. It didn’t seem that he could understand why I would say no to him.”

The Tribunal considered whether from her words and behaviour, Ms C had indicated to Dr Altemimi that his conduct was unwanted. The Tribunal was mindful that individuals react in different ways to unwanted behaviour. It was possible that by trying to laugh off and make a joke of Dr Altemimi’s behaviour, Ms C did not make it clear to him that it was unwanted. However, her response to his repeated requests to go for drinks was an indication that his behaviour was unwanted and she wanted it to stop. In addition, her physical response to his whispering in her ear by trying to turn her head away was another indication that his behaviour was unwanted.

Having considered the evidence and the circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Altemimi engaged in unwanted conduct with Ms D and the conduct was of a sexual nature.

The Tribunal considered Ms C’s evidence regarding her perception of Dr Altemimi’s conduct. In her interview Ms C said ‘If I’m honest I will feel really let down by the process if he continues to work here as it means the organisation thinks this behaviour is acceptable. Why should anyone come to work to be letched at and made to feel like an object?’

It was clear from Ms C’s interviews that she had long perceived herself to have been suffering from the effect of Dr Altemimi’s conduct in that he had created an adverse environment for her, which was degrading, humiliating, and offensive for her.

The Tribunal took into account all of the circumstances of Ms C’s interactions with Dr Altemimi and considered whether it was reasonable for Dr Altemimi’s conduct to have that effect. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonable for Ms C to consider that the effect of Dr Altemimi’s conduct was to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.

Subsequently the Tribunal found Paragraph (5b) of the Allegation proved in relation to Ms C.