Key Facts
- •Dr Shala Imani appealed a 12-month suspension from the General Dental Council (GDC) for dishonesty and misconduct.
- •Allegations spanned 2012-2018, involving inaccurate claims for Units of Dental Activity (UDAs).
- •The GDC relied heavily on Schedule C, compiled from data extracted from destroyed FP17 forms.
- •Dr Imani challenged the admissibility of Schedule C due to hearsay concerns and the lack of access to original FP17 forms.
- •The PCC (Professional Conduct Committee) found Dr Imani dishonest in ten instances, including premature UDA claims.
- •Dr Imani argued inconsistent findings by the PCC, claiming genuine misunderstandings of FP17 form completion requirements.
Legal Principles
Appeal under section 29(3) of the Dentists Act 1984; Court allows appeal if the decision was wrong or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity.
Dentists Act 1984, CPR 52.21(3)
Standard of deference to findings of first instance body depends on circumstances; court will correct material errors of fact and law.
Wasu v GDC [2013] EWHC 3782 (Admin), Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Test for dishonesty: (1) Subjective assessment of the individual's knowledge or belief; (2) Objective assessment by the standards of ordinary decent people.
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
Rules of evidence in professional disciplinary proceedings; discretion to admit hearsay if helpful and in the interests of justice.
General Dental Council (Fitness to Practice) Rules 2006, Rule 57, Civil Evidence Act 1995
Fair trial requirements of Article 6 ECHR; right to examine witnesses against him.
Article 6 ECHR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The PCC's decision was not wrong, unjust, or procedurally irregular. The court found the PCC's reasoning clear and thorough, correctly applying legal principles and weighing evidence appropriately.