Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered an allegation that on 30 April 2024, the Registrant was convicted at Mansfield Magistrates Court that she drove a motor vehicle on road, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in her breath namely 144 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. 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, also considered an allegation that on 8 March 2023 the Registrant was convicted at Nottinghamshire Magistrates Court that she drove a motor vehicle on a road, on 14 August 2022, at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour. Contrary to a local traffic order and sections 84 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This matter was dealt with by way of a single justice procedure before the Magistrates Court. They also considered that the Registrant had not immediately informed the General Dental Council (GDC) of the single justice procedure relating to her speeding conviction, as is required of her. They were satisfied that there was a real prospect of all the factual allegations being found proved and there was a real prospect of the statutory grounds of misconduct and conviction being established by a Practice Committee. However, they also determined that due to the nature of the misconduct and convictions and the low likelihood of repetition, there was no real prospect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being found to be currently impaired. They reminded themselves that the Registrant has been dealt with by the criminal justice system, and that it is not the Case Examiners’ 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. They consider that driving a motor vehicle having consumed excess alcohol and exceeding road speed limits is unacceptable, demonstrating a lack of judgment as well as risking harm to members of the public. They have taken into account their 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 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 should, remain up to date and conversant with the General Dental Council’s Standards for the Dental Team (September 2013) publication, any subsequent iterations of this document, and any relevant GDC Guidance.