Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered allegations that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of conviction and misconduct. The supporting factual allegations related to the Registrant having been convicted, on 25 March 2025, at Bromley Magistrates’ Court, of failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen or specimens of breath for analysis, which were required because the Registrant had been driving, or had attempted to drive, a motor vehicle, on 4 January 2025, contrary to provisions within the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; and having failed to immediately inform the General Dental Council of being charged, by the Metropolitan Police, with the alleged commission of that criminal offence. It was determined by the Case Examiners that there was a real prospect of both factual allegations being found proved and the statutory grounds of conviction and misconduct had a real prospect of being established by a Practice Committee. They also determined that due to the nature of the conviction and purported misconduct, and the low likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s actions, there was no real prospect of the Registrant’s current fitness to practise being found to be impaired by a Practice Committee. The Case Examiners have also reminded themselves, in respect of the conviction, that the Registrant has been dealt with by the criminal justice system, and that it is not the Case Examiners’ role, or the purpose of the fitness to practise process, to punish the Registrant for a second time. However, 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. In addition, the Case Examiners have given regard to the Registrant not allegedly complying with provisions in the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013) and supporting guidance publications. The Case Examiners have also taken into account the General Dental Council’s ‘Case Examiner Indicative Outcomes Guidance’ (February 2018) publication 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. Furthermore, the Case Examiners consider that publication of the warning for a period of 12 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 this warning will form part of his fitness to practise history, even after it is no longer published and may need to be disclosed as required. The Case Examiners formally warn the Registrant that: • the commission of a criminal offence is unacceptable conduct for a registrant and 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’ (September 2013) publication, 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). • he ensures, as necessary, compliance with the notification requirements, regarding criminal proceedings, that are stipulated within the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013) publication, namely Standard 9.3 (You must inform the GDC if you are subject to criminal proceedings or a regulatory finding is made against you, anywhere in the world), and in any GDC associated guidance publication.