Skip to content
No proof Tunbridge Wells doctor assaulted security staff, tribunal finds
An A&E doctor accused of assaulting security staff at Tunbridge Wells Hospital where he worked has seen none of the allegations against him proved at a tribunal. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal said it was not proved Dr Layth Shaker had pushed a security supervisor, and attempted to punch a security officer, grabbing his throat and forcing him on the floor, and kicking him once there.
The tribunal concluded “as the facts have not been proved, it therefore follows that Dr Shaker’s fitness to practise is not impaired”. No action will be taken against Dr Shaker, who has been a qualified doctor for 33 years.
The allegation was that on February 22, 2021, Dr Shaker was noticed by a security officer, walking into the hospital with scrubs on under his clothes, in breach of the infection control policy in place due to the pandemic. It was alleged Dr Shaker continued to walk towards the staircase leading to A&E, and did not stop to give his name as requested by the security officer, who intended to report the breach to management.
Read more: Tunbridge Wells has ‘bigger gardens and prestigious schools’ but ‘not as trendy’ as other Kent towns
The officer followed Dr Shaker and was joined by his security supervisor “Mr A” who he had summoned on his radio, asking for “urgent assistance”. The three men ended up together in “close proximity” in a stairwell.
A physical altercation took place between all three and it was not disputed at the tribunal “Mr A” had fallen down two or three stairs. The incident at the hospital run by Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was reported to the General Medical Council four days later by Mr A.
At the hearing, Dr Shaker gave evidence in person and written statements. Seven people on behalf of Dr Shaker provided testimonials or witness statements.
Dr Shaker said at the hearing, while in the registrar’s room he told Mr B he was going back to his car to change his scrubs. The hearing report stated: “CCTV footage from the hospital corridor showed Dr Shaker leaving the A&E Department and walking in the direction of the doors leading to the stairwell which would have led him out of the building. Mr B and Mr A could be seen purposefully following Dr Shaker from behind.”
It also stated “Dr Shaker complains that he was subjected to unwarranted and forceful restraint and from which, in fear, he struggled to break free”. All three men made complaints about the actions of the other, and made statements of complaint shortly after the incident.
In the tribunal’s analysis of the evidence and findings, it said in one part: “Despite significant aspects of the physical altercation being in dispute, the Tribunal noted that it was not disputed that Mr A stumbled backwards down the stairs before falling from approximately the third step from the bottom and that he landed on his back.
“It was also accepted that Mr B also briefly ended up on the floor. Following this, Mr A and Mr B physically restrained Dr Shaker on the floor, and where he was being restrained when others joined them on the stairs. Firstly Mr G, then shortly after another member of security staff and then Ms K, the ward manager in A&E. Mr G could be seen on the CCTV footage approaching in the direction of the stairwell door. By the time Mr G arrived, Dr Shaker was already being physically restrained by Mr A and Mr B.”
Mr G’s role and identity is also not revealed in the hearing’s report. Dr Shaker’s account to the hearing was that he “accepted that his response was to fight to break free and that he was ‘scared and struggling as hard [as he could]’. He denied that he had at any point punched or grabbed Mr B’s throat or kicked him”, the report stated.
‘Unfortunate incident’
The tribunal panel concluded while it could not wholly reject the evidence of Mr A and Mr B, it concluded Dr Shaker’s account about events on the landing “was equally, and in some respects more, plausible”. The burden of proof fell on the GMC and the panel was not satisfied the GMC had “discharged the burden of proving the case on the balance of probabilities”.
It said although it had been unable to form a definitive view of what had happened on the landing and the stairwell that day, it was “in no doubt that this unfortunate incident would not have occurred had Dr Shaker cooperated with Mr B when he was first asked to give his name. In the tribunal’s judgement this request was a reasonable one, and Mr B was trying to do what he considered to be his job at a difficult time”.
The tribunal ended on May 9. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust has been contacted for comment.
Get more Tunbridge Wells news from KentLive straight to your inbox for free HERE.
Read more Tunbridge Wells news:
