Key Facts
- •Nabeel Aga, a registered dental practitioner, appealed a 9-month suspension imposed by the General Dental Council (GDC) for stalking and harassment.
- •Aga admitted the factual findings but challenged the length of the suspension and the GDC's interpretation of the interaction between immediate suspension and the appeal process.
- •The GDC's practice resulted in a total suspension exceeding the statutory 12-month maximum.
- •The appeal involved the interpretation of Sections 27B, 29A, and 30 of the Dentists Act 1984 (DA84).
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires consideration of legislative intent, context, grammatical meaning, and potential consequences.
Benion 8th ed.
The overarching objective of the GDC is the protection of the public, encompassing health, safety, well-being, and public confidence.
Section 1 of the Dentists Act 1984
The Dentists Act 1984 sets a 12-month maximum for suspension; this is an absolute maximum.
Section 27B(6)(b) of the Dentists Act 1984
An immediate suspension order under Section 30 is parasitic on a direction for suspension under Section 27B and is intended to fill the gap between the direction and its default taking effect date.
Sections 27B, 29A, and 30 of the Dentists Act 1984
Appeals against sanctions require a balancing of deference to professional disciplinary committees' expertise and the court's role in correcting errors of law or fact.
Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 29, Rashid and Fatani v General Medial Council [2007] 1 WLR 1460, Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council [2016] UKSC 64
Outcomes
The appeal regarding the length of the suspension (9 months) was dismissed.
The PCC's finding of a real risk of repetition was justified given Aga's history of harassment despite warnings and a lack of sufficient remediation.
The appeal concerning the GDC's interpretation of the interaction between immediate suspension and the appeal process was granted.
The GDC's interpretation led to a total suspension exceeding the statutory 12-month maximum, was unfair, and penalized Aga for appealing. The court held that the immediate suspension should be deducted from the 9-month suspension.