Blackpool doctor not struck off by panel over ‘one-off’ rape
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o
Posted by pajamakitten
Blackpool doctor not struck off by panel over ‘one-off’ rape
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o
Posted by pajamakitten
25 Comments
Of all the things to do as a ‘one-off’, rape is probably one of the worst things to do. Maybe I am just out of touch though.
The police had investigated and decided not to charge him, so there was obviously insufficient evidence for the claim. Since the whole thing happened at home and not at his workplace I don’t see why he should be struck off. Just because someone accused you of a crime doesn’t mean that you are guilty of it.
This is actually tricker than the headline makes out.
He was accused of rape. The police investigated and found there to be insufficient evidence to progress with the case.
So he was never found guilty. So, technically speaking, he’s innocent in the eyes of the law.
But then an internal employment tribunal, totally unrelated to the formal criminal process – and with presumably little or no ability to conduct a proper investigation – decided that he probably had done it.
But then felt that because everything was so flimsy they probably shouldn’t do anything about it. And then came up with a totally mad justification, which sort of demonstrates the amateurism of the whole process.
So now the guy is sort of considered a rapist, but sort of not. And public trust in our institutions is further eroded. Urghh. What a mess.
I’m always very uncomfortable when quasi-judicial bodies wade into determining criminality – especially on very serious matters like this. We either have a valid legal system to determine guilt, or we don’t.
He hasn’t been charged or convicted of any crime. On what basis do people expect him to lose his livelihood without a formal conviction?
This case would honestly become a slippery slope: if someone doesn’t like a person that happens to be a doctor, this would encourage people to make silly frivolous claims about them (that could never proceed in a court of law).
Hang on just a darn minute here. The MPTS are surely not there to determine his guilt of a crime he has not been charged with? We do not know whether this man has raped anybody, it has not been tested in a criminal court, despite investigation. The arrogance of the mpts to think it can both make this claim and reinstate him!
[removed]
The tribunal heard that the woman had said he’d raped her? That’s very different to being found guilty. It seems quite a strange story.
Didn’t think I would see this sub stand up for some who ‘on the balance of probabilities’ raped someone. Usually its ‘believe the victims no matter what’ and ‘this is why rape goes unreported’
GMC are useless.
All they care about is collecting money and bullying doctors who have done no wrong (Laptop-gate) into suicide.
They’re also doing nothing about the countless PAs illegally ordering scans and prescribing.
There needs to be a vote of no confidence.
So of you wanna be a doctor, you have to keep your rapes below 2.
Rapes, especially rapes, are not convictions based on the balance of probabilities.
This is a very odd decision.
This is separate to a court of law, the bar here is “on the balance of probability”. Employers and regulatory bodies can and do punish people for things which dint meet the threshold of criminal courts. That’s all fine. I just can’t understand the conclusion and punishment.
Either he (probabaly) didn’t do it and there’s no punishment or he (probabaly) did do it and should be struck off. Deciding be pribabaly did it but taking no significant action is a weird path of least resistance that does no favours to him, his victim and any colleagues or patients he works with.
It’s a bit ridiculous tbh.
The GMC is not above the law.
If the law doesn’t have enough evidence that this dr raped someone, the GMC can’t decide they probably did
Shortage of doctors it’s now three strikes and you’re out, four if your from a disadvantaged background.
I heard of second chances, but not like this. But then again our laws are weak af so why am I still surprised
> noted a series of glowing testimonials from colleagues.
I hate this shit. Many horrible people will have glowing testimonials from friends, and colleagues. Its such a useless thing. So if someone rapes but they have friends who are like ‘Wonderful guy, ive never seen him rape’ its meant to mean something?
[I am not associated in anyway with the parties. I have considered the case carefully form the[ reported facts in MPTS judgment](https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-aloaye-foy-yamah-10-jan-25.pdf). I am totally unrelated to the proceedings in the past, present nor will be related in the future]
While the BBC’s title captures the outcome of the case (the doctor was not struck off), the use of the phrase “*one-off rape*” is **inaccurate and potentially misleading** or **inappropriately damaging**. The Tribunal did not definitively find that Dr. Foy-Yamah committed rape under the statutory definition, and the focus of the GMC proceedings was on professional misconduct rather than criminal liability. Dr Foy-Yamah may have options in law.
It is clear that the Police – naturally in consultation with the CPS – opted not to make a charge of rape or any other sexual assault.
Ms A stayed with Dr Foy-Yamah in **XXX** for several days between **14 November 2018** and **21 November 2018** .
The alleged incident occurred during this period, as Ms A claims it happened on one of the nights she spent at his house. It is surprising that it appeared that the complainant was not specific about the date of an alleged rape.
There is **no evidence** in the MPTS judgment to suggest that Ms A underwent a forensic examination for alleged rape between **14 November 2018** and **21 November 2018**. The blood tests arranged by Dr Foy-Yamah on **15 November 2018** were unrelated to a forensic investigation and appear to have been conducted for other reasons.
>58. Drawing the strands of the evidence together, the Tribunal has reached the following conclusions: […]
>Ms A is inconsistent on whether the incident happened on the evening of her arrival, the evening of the XXX test or the evening when Dr Foy Yamah collected the results of the test (20 November 2018). She clearly had no precise recollection of the date and was endeavouring in re-examination to work out when it might have been. Her plumping for the evening before the XXX test defied logic
**”Plumping for the Evening Before the XXX Test”**
During re-examination, Ms A settled on the evening **before the XXX test (15 November 2018)** as the likely date of the incident. However, the Tribunal found this choice “*defied logic*.”
**Why does it defy logic?**
* If the incident occurred on the evening of the XXX test, it would mean Ms A willingly participated in the test the following day **without raising any concerns or objections about being sexually assaulted the night before.**
* Additionally, this timeline conflicts with other evidence, such as the WhatsApp messages exchanged on **20 November 2018** , which suggest a different sequence of events.
Quite a few comments sticking up for the doctor in question even though a panel found on the balance of probabilities (51%) he did commit rape. If this was a Police Officer who was keeping his job even though he had been found guilty of gross misconduct because the panel believed he had raped someone, I doubt very much there would be support for him. What’s wrong with people? This doctor has been found guilty of whatever the NHS’s version of gross misconduct is because they believe he raped someone but he can carry on being a doctor? And people are defending him?! I know we love the NHS but c’mon…
In ancient times, the standard of this industry was the privileged class. You can see a bunch of people who are not rich being excluded by another group of people who are born rich in a bunch of medical student discussion groups. They are quite arrogant and arrogant. If you don’t listen to their group activities, they will kick you out. It’s really sad. The medical industry is in great need of manpower to bear the increasing number of patients.
In this article, the same doctor (I’m assuming, but the name being exactly the same is too much of a coincidence, I think!) was mentioned in a separate case.
He was investigated for behaving in a ‘sexually-motivated manner’ with a patient that he knew personally! [https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/health/urgent-review-at-blackpool-victoria-hospital-adds-to-litany-of-issues-4664237](https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/health/urgent-review-at-blackpool-victoria-hospital-adds-to-litany-of-issues-4664237)
Edit: Seems to actually be the same woman involved in both those instances, ie both for the alleged rape and the ‘sexually-motivated behaviour’!
A bunch of rape apologists in this comments section who are apparently unaware that only 5% of reported rape offences even result in a charge at all and half that for convictions. The CPS will simply not prosecute unless they have a fucking ton of physical evidence and even then it’s a coin toss in court.
I kinda assumed that rape was something that every non-rapist thought was bad? No wonder people don’t come forward because this is the type of shit that they have to deal with.
What happened to consequences?
It seems like so many people are getting away with anything these days.
This isn’t an isolated case either. Someone I went to school with got convicted of multiple rapes last year, and got 18 months in prison… it would have been higher, but the judge said it was his “first offence”.
He was convicted of *multiple* rapes. It’s not his first offence, it just took police months to catch the bastard.
Would I also get a pass if I shove a shovel up his arse? I’ve never done that before, and I’m unlikely to do it again, it’s a one off.
After reading the judgement and evidence it’s pretty clear the doctor here did commit rape.
Tribunals finding on not striking off was because the doctor wasn’t convicted of a criminal offence – presumably because the rules mention offence because of the higher burden of proof.
Tribunals decision seems ludicrous to me, clearly if being convicted of minor sexual assault is enough to get you struck off, being found on the balance of probabilities to have raped someone should be enough. Will be interesting to see what the high court has to say…