Search the Registers

The case examiners considered an allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction. The allegation related to a self-report made by the Registrant to the GDC on 14 February 2025 that she had been convicted of an offence related to the use of a disabled badge in parking a motor vehicle. The Registrant had been convicted on 13 February 2025 at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court. The details of the conviction recorded: ‘18 July 2024 at Portsmouth you acted in contravention of a provision of an order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, namely Section 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, relating to the parking of motor vehicles and at that time there was displayed on the motor vehicle a badge of a form prescribed under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and you were using the vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would have been available to a disabled person's vehicle. Contrary to Section 117(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.’ The case examiners determined that there was a real prospect of the factual allegation related to the conviction being found proved, the statutory ground of conviction having a real prospect of being established by a Practice Committee, but no real prospect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being found to be currently impaired. The case examiners have taken into account their Case Examiner Guidance Manual (November 2016) regarding the criteria to be considered when minded to issue a warning, and also their Indicative Outcomes Guidance (February 2018) in relation to examples of types of cases for which it may be appropriate to issue a warning, including for a criminal conviction for an offence of this type. Paragraph 12 of the Indicative Outcomes Guidance records: ‘The examples below are not an exhaustive list of the types of cases which it may be appropriate for the Case Examiners to close with advice or a warning… • a criminal conviction (other than for violent, sexual or dishonesty type offences) not resulting in a custodial sentence – a warning may be appropriate for this type of case’ The case examiners consider that the issuing and publication of a 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. The Registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of her 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 can have an adverse effect on the wider public interest, and should not be repeated. Any further criminal convictions will be viewed seriously and will likely call into question her fitness to practise. • she should, as required by the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ and associated guidance, maintain appropriate standards of behaviour in her personal life.