Key Facts
- •Mr. Patel, a dentist, was convicted of causing death by careless driving.
- •He failed to inform the GDC of the charges.
- •The GDC's Professional Conduct Committee (the Committee) imposed a reprimand.
- •The PSA appealed, arguing the sanction was insufficient to maintain public confidence.
Legal Principles
The GDC's overarching objective is the protection of the public, including maintaining public confidence in the profession and proper professional standards.
Section 1 of the Dentists Act 1984
A dentist's fitness to practice may be impaired by misconduct or conviction; sanctions include erasure, suspension, conditions, or reprimand.
Section 27 of the Dentists Act 1984
The PSA can appeal a decision if it's insufficient for public protection (health, safety, well-being, public confidence, and professional standards).
Section 29(4) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professionals Act 2002
Appeals consider whether the penalty is manifestly inappropriate; the court interferes only if there's an error of principle or the evaluation was unreasonable.
Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v GMC and Ruscillo [2005] 1WLR 717 and Bawa-Garba v GMC [2019] 1 WLR 1929
In serious criminal offence convictions, a practitioner shouldn't resume practice until completing their sentence, unless circumstances clearly justify otherwise; this applies to suspended sentences.
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and GDC Guidance
The sanction should be the least severe adequately addressing the issues while protecting public interest; mitigation plays a reduced role in conviction cases.
GDC Guidance and Bolton v Law Society (1994) 1 WLR 512
Assessment of public confidence is objective; evidence of public concern isn't necessary but neither is it determinative.
Adil v GMC [2023] EWHC 797 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Committee's sanction of a reprimand was insufficient to maintain public confidence, given the seriousness of the conviction for causing death by careless driving.
The Committee's decision was quashed.
The statutory scheme requires quashing the decision upon allowing the appeal.
The matter was remitted to the Committee for reconsideration of the sanction.
This allows the Committee to consider the sanction afresh, taking into account the elapsed time and Mr. Patel's completion of his sentence.
Mr. Patel was ordered to pay the PSA's costs.
Mr. Patel was deemed the unsuccessful party.
The PSA's application for costs against the GDC was refused.
The GDC supported the PSA's appeal.