Ijaz Khan
Introduction
Dr Ijaz Khan was a Liverpool doctor erased from the medical register in September 2025 after a tribunal found that his conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour made him unfit to practise. The case concerned a woman referred to throughout the proceedings only as Ms A: Khan was sentenced in May 2023 to three years’ imprisonment and made subject to an indefinite restraining order not to contact her. Beyond that, the public record is thin — neither his age nor his medical specialty is recorded in the sources cited here.
Background Information
The sources say little about Khan’s life before the conviction. He practised as a doctor in Liverpool, and MedicWatch’s record of his tribunal determination lists him as registered with the General Medical Council under number 7077022. Neither the Dignity 4Patients report nor the MedicWatch determination page states his age, his specialty, or where he trained or worked beyond describing him as a Liverpool doctor.
What is documented is the end of his career. On May 26, 2023, Khan was sentenced to a three-year custodial sentence and an indefinite restraining order not to contact the victim, referred to as Ms A. Sentencing was carried out by His Honour Judge Potter, whose remarks at that hearing later formed part of the case put before Khan’s tribunal.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Khan’s conviction for controlling or coercive behaviour is a matter of court record. The tribunal’s findings rested on that conviction; the reports cited here describe the abuse as established in the criminal proceedings.
A Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal sat between September 3 and 5, 2025, to determine whether Khan’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction; MedicWatch records it as a substantive hearing in a conviction/caution case. The GMC was represented by Mr James Halliday, who told the tribunal: “The abuse Ms A was subject to over the [XXX] year indictment period included verbal abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse and financial control.” (The report redacts the length of the indictment period.) Specific examples, Halliday said, had been led in evidence at trial and detailed in Ms A’s victim personal statement, read out at the sentencing hearing, in which she described how Khan would “grind [her] down slowly, day by day, using taunts, ridicule and violence.”
Halliday also relied on Judge Potter’s sentencing remarks. Potter, he said, was “sure that Dr Khan used [his] appetite for sex, and [his] demand for sex from Ms A as a tool of further element of coercion and control”. Potter had told Khan directly: “I agree that your behaviour was persistent and over a prolonged period, it used multiple methods of control and coercion, and at times it was designed and intended to humiliate and degrade… I have no hesitation in categorising your culpability as high.” Halliday acknowledged there had been no previous findings against Khan but submitted there “is a concern significant enough to find that Dr Khan’s fitness to practise is currently impaired”, noting that Khan had “breached fundamental tenets of the profession”.
Khan submitted a written statement to the tribunal. “I sincerely apologise to [Ms A] for causing physical and mental trauma and to the public for bringing disrepute to the medical profession,” it read in part. “There is no justification for my severe criminal and unjustified coercive behaviour, and I take full responsibility for the hurt, disappointment, and consequences it has caused.”
The tribunal found that Khan had breached fundamental tenets of the profession and brought the medical profession into disrepute, and determined that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction. On September 5 it turned to sanction. Halliday submitted that erasure from the Medical Register was the only appropriate sanction; Khan disagreed. He stated that it was only when he was convicted that he realised his behaviour was wrong, and that he had believed his conduct was culturally acceptable. He said he had not been aware of coercive control until he was found guilty, that his probation officer had helped him address his behaviour, that he had taken courses in prison, and that he had completed the Building Better relationship course over four months following his release.
The tribunal concluded that, in light of Khan’s conviction, the three-year custody and the indefinite restraining order, “this was a serious departure from the principles set out in GMP”, with “his behaviour being fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor”. It therefore determined to erase his name from the medical register, and his registration was immediately suspended.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The immediate consequence was the loss of his registration: MedicWatch records the outcome as “struck off the register”, with the erasure decision dated 5 September 2025 at the end of the three-day hearing. The case was reported by Emma Dukes for Liverpool News and republished by Dignity 4Patients on October 2, 2025, whose accompanying commentary warned that abuse by trusted professionals violates “the trust placed in those charged with care and authority”.
Ms A’s anonymity was preserved throughout: both sources identify her only as Ms A and publish nothing of her identity.
Current Status
As of the most recent source records, Khan remains erased from the medical register. MedicWatch lists the decision date as 5 September 2025 and directs readers to check the official register for the practitioner’s current registration status. The Dignity 4Patients report, published October 2, 2025, records that his registration was suspended immediately upon the erasure decision; it notes no further development since.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The erasure forecloses medical practice in the United Kingdom: the tribunal’s own conclusion was that Khan’s behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor”. In his written statement he had pleaded for that future, writing that “Medicine is not just a career. It is a calling rooted in compassion, integrity, and service to others”, and that “if I would have given a chance to start practicing”, his reverence for the oath and the trust placed in him by patients and colleagues “will never waver”.
The criminal consequences stand alongside the professional one: a three-year prison sentence — after which he completed the Building Better relationship course over four months — and an indefinite restraining order not to contact Ms A. He told the tribunal that “every day” spent without caring for patients left “an empty mark” on his life; the tribunal’s answer was erasure.