Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered an allegation that on 28 February 2024, the registrant was convicted at St Albans Magistrates' Court, of: On 15 June 2023 at TRING in the county of HERTS, the registrant used a motor vehicle, on a road, or other public place, namely A4251, when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of Insurance. Contrary to section 143 of, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Case Examiners, also considered an allegation that the registrant had not immediately informed the General Dental Council (GDC) that she was subject to these proceedings, nor of her conviction, as is required of her. The Case Examiners were satisfied that there was a real prospect of the factual allegations being found proved and there was a real prospect of the statutory grounds of conviction and misconduct being established by a Practice Committee. However, they also determined that due to the nature of the conviction and misconduct, and the low likelihood of repetition, there was no real prospect of the registrant’s fitness to practise being found to be currently impaired. The Case Examiners reminded themselves that the registrant has been dealt with by the criminal justice system, and that it is not the Case Examiner’s 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 promote and maintain public confidence in the dental professions and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions. The Case Examiners consider that driving a motor vehicle without appropriate insurance is unacceptable, demonstrating a lack of judgment as well as risking harm to members of the public. They have taken into account the Case Examiners Indicative Outcomes Guidance (February 2018) and consider that a warning in this case is necessary. Furthermore, they 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 conduct. The Case Examiners remind the registrant she must uphold the GDC’s Standards and Guidance, to maintain appropriate future conduct. The registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of her fitness to practise history and she may be required to disclose it even after the period for publication has expired. 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 her fitness to practise. • She should, as required by the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013) publication, maintain appropriate standards of behaviour in her 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’. • She must, as required by the General Dental Council’s ‘Guidance on reporting criminal proceedings’ (September 2013) publication immediately inform the General Dental Council if she is subject to any criminal proceedings or a regulatory finding is made against her anywhere in the world.