Doctor Jailed for Lying in Court
Midweek Herald / 3rd June 2008
A DOCTOR from Great Alne, whose lies about his qualifications caused a court case to collapse, has been jailed for six months, and the judge told him that witnesses had to be scrupulously honest.

Mohammed Rafiq, of The Long House, had also falsely claimed that he had been awarded a prestigious prize. Sentencing him at Birmingham Crown Court, Judge Trevor Faber said he had taken into account that Rafiq's career had now been destroyed and that no complaint had been made about his standard of work as a doctor. But he said: "Judges are entitled to expect witnesses, and in particular expert witnesses, to be scrupulously honest as
to their evidence when it comes to their qualifications and
experience. "

He said the central issue in the case was dependent on the
medical evidence that was given and added: "Perjury of
any kind hits at the very heart of the judicial system."
The 47-year-old doctor had previously pleaded guilty to
two charges of perjury.   Simon Davies, prosecuting, said a law firm had picked Rafiq to assess their client in a personal injuries case arising
out of a road traffic accident, on the basis he had suitable
qualifications including being a Fellow of the Royal College
of Surgeons as well as having an additional specialist
qualification in trauma and orthopaedics.
He said that Rafiq was required to give expert evidence  to the court and that meant examining the injured man, also
a doctor, before the case was heard; assessing his level of
injury and making a prognosis for the future.
He also had to consider medical reports from the respondent's
expert and give his opinion about them.
Rafiq gave evidence on oath at Birmingham County
Court in May 2005 and the case was adjourned until September
of that year. Solicitors for the respondent became
concerned about parts of his evidence and at the second
hearing Rafiq was specifically cross-examined about his
qualifications which he maintained were correct.
Mr Davies said the solicitors then made further investigations which revealed Rafiq's claims were untrue. Although he had applied to sit an exam to become a Fellow of the RCS in 1991, he had later withdrawn from the examination. Also, he had twice sat an exam for trauma and
orthopaedic surgery but had failed on each occasion.
As a result, said Mr Davies, the civil action collapsed and
Rafiq ended up paying £60,000 costs.
Jonathan Goodman, defending, said Rafiq;-who had a
first-class honours degree in chemistry, was medically
qualified and not a charlatan. He said: "What he has done,
and in so doing has destroyed his career and his reputation,
is simply tell two lies." He said he was a talented doctor who had had numerous articles published in journals including The Lancet.