General Dental Council v Fitzgerald

When deciding whether to continue an interim suspension affecting a regulated professional, the court must balance the seriousness of the allegations, the risk to patients, the prejudice to the professional, and the reasons for the requested extension. Even where the allegations and patient risk are serious, a lengthy extension may be unjustified once the relevant assessment has been obtained and the disciplinary process can proceed promptly. The extension should be limited to the period reasonably required for the regulatory process to advance.

The General Dental Council applied under section 32(8) of the Dentist Act 1984 for continuation of an interim suspension order imposed on James Fitzgerald approximately 18 months earlier. The delay had partly resulted from his failure to engage with the process and his delayed consent to medical assessment. A medical report diagnosed alcohol dependency and concluded that he was unfit to return to dentistry unless he drank within safe limits.

The Council sought a further 12-month extension because the matter had to return to the relevant committee for decisions about charges. Fitzgerald was unrepresented and indicated that the suspension was causing financial loss and that he needed an urgent solution. The central issue was the appropriate duration of any further extension.

1. The application for a further 12-month extension was refused. The interim suspension was continued for three months.
2. In determining the appropriate period, the court had to consider the seriousness of the allegation, the seriousness of the risk to patients, the potential prejudice to the respondent, and the reason for the requested extension.
3. The allegation and risk to patients were serious, as was the prejudice caused to Fitzgerald by the continuing suspension and loss of employment. The reason for the proposed extension was weakened by the fact that the medical report had now been obtained and the matter could proceed to the relevant committee.
4. The committee was expected to proceed with all due speed and, if a hearing was required, to list it within a short period. Balancing the relevant factors, three months was the appropriate extension.
5. The review of the order was removed from the draft order.