Key Facts
- •Mr. Arthif Danial (Registrant), a dentist, was found guilty of inappropriate and sexually motivated misconduct towards three female colleagues by the General Dental Council's (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (Committee).
- •The Committee imposed a five-month suspension order with a review, effective immediately.
- •Two appeals were filed: one by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) challenging the sanction and some findings of fact, and one by the Registrant challenging all findings and the sanction.
- •The Registrant also raised a separate issue regarding the effective start date of his suspension.
Legal Principles
The overarching objective of the GDC is the protection of the public, encompassing public health, safety, well-being, and maintaining public confidence in the profession.
Dentists Act 1984, Section 1(1ZA) and (1ZB)
In fitness to practise proceedings, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. While the seriousness of the allegation is relevant to the quality of evidence needed, there's no heightened standard of proof.
Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)
Sexual motivation is inferred from conduct, not directly observed. The court should show deference to the disciplinary body's judgment, especially on credibility assessments.
Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin)
Sanctions aim to maintain professional standards and public confidence, not to punish. The court's role on appeal is supervisory; interference is limited to errors of principle or unreasonable decisions.
Various cases cited in section 32
Sexual misconduct is inherently serious and often leads to erasure, but erasure is not mandatory in every case. Proportionality and the specific facts must be considered.
Arunachalam v GMC [2018] EWHC 758 (Admin)
A disciplinary tribunal must consider good character evidence, affecting both credibility and propensity, but a lack of explicit mention in the reasoning doesn't automatically invalidate the decision if the court can infer it was considered.
Donkin v Law Society [2007] EWHC 414 (Admin), other cases cited in section 26
The court may substitute its own decision or remit the case to the committee on appeal.
Sections 29 of the Dentists Act 1984 and 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002
Outcomes
The Registrant's appeal was dismissed.
The court found the Committee's findings of fact, while containing inconsistencies and brief reasoning, were not wrong or unjust due to irregularity.
The PSA's appeal was largely dismissed, except for one finding of fact.
The court upheld the five-month suspension, finding it neither wrong nor unjust. However, the court overturned the Committee's finding that the massage given to Person 2 was not sexually motivated.
The Registrant's suspension will begin immediately upon dismissal of the appeal.
The court rejected the argument that the period of immediate suspension should be deducted from the five-month suspension, disagreeing with the decision in *Aga v General Dental Council*.