Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered an allegation that on 20 July 2023, the Registrant was convicted at North Hampshire Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle with alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Case Examiners determined that there was a real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the factual allegation proved, and a real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the statutory ground of conviction established. However, the Case Examiners also determined, due to the nature of the conviction, and the low likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s actions which caused the Registrar to raise the allegation in this case, that there was no real prospect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being found to be currently impaired by reason of conviction. The Case Examiners have reminded themselves that the Registrant has been dealt with by the criminal justice system, and that it is not the Case Examiners’ role, nor the purpose of the fitness to practise process, to punish the Registrant for a second time. However, they considered that to close the case without action would fail to take into account the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, and the need to maintain public confidence in the dental profession. The Case Examiners consider that driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding the prescribed limit allowed for alcohol is unacceptable, demonstrating a lack of judgement as well as risking harm to members of the public. In addition, the Case Examiners have given regard to the Registrant not, allegedly, complying with the GDC’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013), namely Standard 9.1 which states ‘You must ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the dental profession’. The Case Examiners have also taken into account the GDC’s ‘Case Examiner Indicative Outcomes Guidance’ (26 February 2018) and consider that a warning in this case is necessary to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and conduct, as well as to mark the serious impact which illegal behaviour can have on the reputation of the profession. Further, after taking into account their Guidance Manual (November 2016), the Case Examiners consider that publication of the warning for a period of 20 months is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances, and will ensure that a message is sent to the Registrant, and to the wider profession, regarding the importance of maintaining appropriate standards of behaviour. The Registrant is reminded that he may need to disclose this warning in the future where required, and that it will form part of his fitness to practise history even after it is no longer published. The Case Examiners formally warn the Registrant that: • the commission of a criminal offence is unacceptable conduct for a registrant and can have an adverse effect on the wider public interest, this conduct should not be repeated. Any further criminal convictions will be viewed seriously and will likely call into question his fitness to practise. • he should, as required by the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ publication and associated guidance, maintain appropriate standards of behaviour in his personal life as detailed in Standard 9.1 ‘You must ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the dental profession’.