In a disciplinary hearing before the General Dental Council (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee, Simon Butler represented Dr. B, a private general dental practitioner in Worthing.
The GDC made a number of serious allegations against Dr. B alleging dishonesty, behaving in a misleading manner, failing to obtain consent, and failing to provide competent treatment to three patients.
The allegations concerning dishonesty and misleading statements were dismissed and/or withdrawn following submissions.
In the recent case of Dr. Qureshi v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 3729 (Admin), King J said:
“Their reasoning on dishonesty is flawed not because on the face of it it does not read well, but because it fails to take into account that dishonesty is a finding against a professional which is probably the most serious finding which a Panel can make, and requires very careful consideration of all factors before it is reached.”
Misconduct allegations concerning dishonesty and misleading statements are very serious matters for professional practitioners. As King J said in Dr. Qureshi, it is probably the most serious finding which a Panel can make. It requires very careful consideration.
Findings of dishonesty impact on a professional’s integrity, particularly when associated with professional practice. It is highly damaging to the dental professional’s fitness to practise and a panel is entitled to take into account the way in which a registrant has conducted his or her defence and any dishonesty therein.
Allegations alleging dishonesty and misleading conduct are becoming a common feature in disciplinary proceedings and require expertise from an experienced practitioner.
Simon Butler was instructed by BSG Solicitors LLP on behalf of the dentist.
In this week’s edition Linda Nelson examines how and when to serve surveillance evidence, and how and when to respond to it; and John Schmitt asks whether it’s necessary to have a claim form re-sealed if it’s been amended prior to service, and urges caution…
This week Thomas Yarrow revisits the vexed question of the use of artificial intelligence in legal research – and our intrepid reporter finds that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact the experience led him to such depths of despair that he…
This week Ben Rodgers relays two tales from the coalface, both relating to applications to resile from admissions. Readers will be interested to know that in both cases the court applied the balance of prejudice test with the result that the defendants’ applications were refused….
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR