Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered an allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. This was because of supporting factual allegations that related to the Registrant accepting a ‘Community Resolution Order’ from Surrey Police, for sending to a third party a false communication with intent to cause harm; failing to notify the General Dental Council about having accepted a ‘Community Resolution Order’; and there being associated probity concerns. It was determined by the Case Examiners that there was a real prospect of some of the factual allegations being found proved and that the statutory ground of misconduct had a real prospect of being established by a Practice Committee. They further determined that due to it seeming to be highly unlikely the relevant alleged conduct would be repeated, and that the case’s circumstances may not have sufficiently engaged the wider public interest, there was no real prospect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being found to be currently impaired by a Practice Committee. The Case Examiners have also reminded themselves, in respect of the ‘Community Resolution Order’, 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) publication. 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 criminal behaviour can have on the reputation of the profession. Furthermore, the Case Examiners consider that publication of this warning for a period of 3 months is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances and will ensure that this emphasises to the Registrant, and to the dental profession, the importance of maintaining the standard of conduct required for GDC registrants. 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 is unacceptable conduct for a registrant and should not be repeated, and any further such occurrences 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 Standards 1.3 (You must be honest and act with integrity) and 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).