Shiekh, R (on the application of) v General Dental Council

A court considering an interim suspension under the Dentists Act 1984 exercises an original jurisdiction. Its inquiry is more open-ended than judicial review, although it should ordinarily respect the professional panel’s expertise.

Where suspension is sought solely in the public interest, the threshold is high. Necessity is ordinarily the appropriate yardstick because suspension seriously affects livelihood and reputation. Public-interest interim suspension is therefore likely to be relatively rare. The court must decide whether suspension is required before the final hearing, rather than whether it may ultimately be justified after full examination of the evidence and mitigation.

A General Dental Council panel imposed an 18-month interim suspension on a dental surgeon following his conviction for conspiracy to defraud in connection with his practice. A reviewing panel maintained the order. Both panels relied solely on public confidence and the profession’s reputation; the practitioner presented no direct risk to patients, and his clinical competence was not questioned.

The practitioner applied under section 32 of the Dentists Act 1984 to terminate the suspension. The central issues were the nature of the court’s jurisdiction and whether an interim suspension was required in the public interest pending the imminent substantive disciplinary hearing.

1. The application succeeded and the interim suspension was terminated. The power conferred on the court by section 32(12) of the Dentists Act 1984 was an original jurisdiction. The court’s approach was more open-ended than conventional judicial review. Nevertheless, it should ordinarily respect a professional panel’s decision because the panel has expertise concerning professional standards, public perception and public confidence. The court applied the guidance in GMC v Hiew [2007] 1 WLR 2007. [10]

2. Although the phrase “otherwise in the public interest” in section 32(4) was not grammatically governed by the word “necessary”, reliance on the public interest carried at least an implication of necessity and certainly of desirability. Because suspension has serious consequences for livelihood and reputation, proportionality sets a high threshold. Necessity is ordinarily an appropriate yardstick, and public-interest interim suspension is likely to be relatively rare. The result nevertheless depends on the facts of each case. [15]–[16]

3. An interim suspension implies that suspension is considered very likely at the final hearing. It also risks depriving the practitioner of an opportunity to demonstrate good and competent conduct before that hearing. Those consequences reinforce the need for careful justification, although the latter consideration had less force on the particular facts because the practitioner could continue operating dental practices indirectly. [17]–[18]

4. The panels had not explained why suspension was needed on an interim basis. There was no ongoing or future risk. Public confidence and the seriousness of the conviction might be relevant to sanction after full examination of the evidence and mitigation, but they did not by themselves explain the need for suspension pending that hearing. Delay, financial reparation and good conduct since the relevant events also weighed against interim suspension. [23]–[24]

5. The court decided only that interim suspension was not called for. Whether suspension should be imposed at the substantive hearing remained a separate matter for the disciplinary panel on the full evidence and submissions. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment. [25]–[26], [29]–[38]

• High Court (Administrative Court): Exercising its original statutory jurisdiction, the court terminated the interim suspension and allowed the application: [2007] EWHC 2972 (Admin).
• General Dental Council review panel: On 17 May 2007 the panel maintained the interim suspension for the remainder of its term on public-interest grounds.
• General Dental Council Interim Hearings Panel: On 21 November 2006 the panel imposed an 18-month interim suspension following the practitioner’s conviction.