Veizi, R (On the Application Of) v The General Dental Council

An appeal against professional erasure may be heard in the appellant’s absence where the appellant has proper notice, understands the hearing date and has chosen neither to attend nor to pursue an adjournment or withdrawal.

Serious, prolonged dishonesty involving the misleading of patients and false claims for public funds may justify erasure where lesser sanctions would damage public confidence in the profession. An immediate suspension order may properly maintain that position pending erasure.

The claimant appealed against a Professional Conduct Committee determination of the General Dental Council. The Committee found misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise, principally arising from dishonest conduct involving advice to patients and excessive claims for units of dental activity.

The Committee directed that the claimant’s name be erased from the Dental Register and imposed an immediate suspension order. The claimant initially sought an adjournment but later indicated that he was considering discontinuing the appeal. He did not withdraw it, seek a further adjournment or attend the hearing.

The court therefore had to decide whether to determine the appeal in his absence and whether the findings and sanction could stand.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had proper notice of the hearing and had demonstrated that he knew when it would take place. He neither attended nor responded to the defendant’s invitation to seek an adjournment or withdraw the appeal. The court accordingly proceeded in his absence, adopting the approach taken in Al-Daraji v The General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 1835 (Admin).
2. The allegations went beyond remediable clinical shortcomings. They included dishonesty concerning advice given to patients and deliberately excessive claims for units of dental activity. The underlying facts were largely admitted, although the claimant disputed the conclusion that his conduct was dishonest.
3. The Committee was entitled to find substantial misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise. Dishonesty of this kind brought the profession into disrepute and affected public confidence.
4. Given the nature, extent and duration of the dishonest practices, including misleading patients and making false claims for public funds, erasure was the least possible sanction. The court considered it difficult to see how the Committee could properly have reached another conclusion. An immediate suspension order was necessary until erasure took effect.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, assessed at £22,070.18.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the Professional Conduct Committee’s direction that the claimant’s name be erased from the Dental Register and its immediate suspension order. The appeal was dismissed.