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 on the 10 March 2023 by the Registrant, that he had been charged with a driving offence. The Registrant was subsequently convicted on 7 April 2025 of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 9 March 2025 ‘Contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.’ The case examiners determined that there was a real prospect of the single factual allegation 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 48 of the Indicative Outcomes Guidance records: ‘48 Equally, there will be certain cases involving minor convictions (generally “summary only” matters i.e. those which may only be tried in the Magistrates’ Court) or cautions, where the initial presumption is that the matter is likely not to require referral or that, if referred, is not likely to be considered serious enough to warrant a finding of currently impaired fitness to practise. These types of cases could include: • one-off drink driving offences where there is no evidence of underlying health concerns. In considering the case and the prospect of a finding of current impairment the Case Examiners may wish to take into account the amount of alcohol consumed and the reasons for driving…’ The case examiners consider that 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 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 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 his fitness to practise. • he should, as required by the General Dental Council’s ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ and associated guidance, maintain appropriate standards of behaviour in his personal life.