Martinez v General Dental Council

In reviewing an interim order imposed by a professional regulator, the court exercises an original jurisdiction. It must consider the evidence and arguments afresh, while giving appropriate weight to the regulator’s specialist judgment without treating it as binding or deserving automatic deference.

The task is risk assessment, not final fact-finding. Disputed allegations may support interim protection where they are credible and disclose a non-fanciful risk, although the court must consider the quality and limitations of the evidence. A regulator must give intelligible reasons identifying the risk, addressing significant submissions and explaining the chosen conditions. If reasons are deficient, the court may examine the matter broadly and substitute its own decision.

The claimant challenged, under section 32(12) of the Dentists Act 1984, an Interim Orders Committee decision imposing ten conditions on his dental registration for 18 months.

The proceedings arose from allegations concerning the clinical care of 39 patients, record keeping, and the misuse of confidential patient data. The claimant disputed the allegations and argued that the evidence consisted of a selective record-based snapshot. He also challenged the adequacy of the Committee’s reasons, particularly in relation to data protection and confidentiality.

The central issues were the court’s approach to reviewing an interim order, the sufficiency of the evidence of risk, the adequacy of the Committee’s reasons, and the appropriate remedy.

1. Application dismissed. The interim conditional registration order remained in force. There was no finding of fact against the claimant, and the underlying allegations remained for investigation.
2. The court exercised its powers under section 32(12) of the Dentists Act 1984 in an original, rather than appellate or judicial review, jurisdiction. It considered the evidence and arguments afresh. The Interim Orders Committee’s expertise was entitled to weight, but the court was not bound by its view and should not defer to it automatically.
3. Interim proceedings involve risk assessment rather than definitive findings of fact. Where allegations are disputed, the decision-maker should ordinarily assess whether they are credible. They should be treated as disclosing a sufficient basis for interim protection unless they are manifestly incredible or bound to fail at a final hearing. There is no statutory requirement to establish a prima facie case. Nevertheless, the court must examine the quality of the evidence and whether it is sufficient to justify a risk.
4. The Committee was entitled to rely provisionally on an expert report identifying numerous apparent clinical failings in records relating to a substantial number of patients. The incomplete records did not necessarily remove the risk. In particular, records showing a lesion without any recorded follow-up or referral provided sufficient evidence of a risk requiring interim conditions.
5. The Committee’s reasons were adequate in relation to the clinical and record-keeping concerns when read as a whole, although some wording was capable of criticism. Its reasons concerning confidentiality and data protection were deficient because they stated a conclusion without explaining what risk had been established or why.
6. Because the deficiency affected only one distinct category of allegations, it did not undermine the other conditions. The court examined the data-protection issue itself and concluded that the allegations of downloading records to separate devices, together with a credible allegation of photographic use without consent, justified condition 7 as necessary and proportionate. The allegation concerning publication on Picasa, considered alone, did not justify the condition because there was evidence of patient consent.
7. The court gave guidance for the mandatory review of the order. The General Dental Council should obtain and consider the full patient records, and should take any continuing delay into account when assessing proportionality and the duration of the order. There was no order as to costs.

First-instance judicial review challenge under section 32(12) of the Dentists Act 1984. The court dismissed the challenge and upheld the Interim Orders Committee’s order.