The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The General Dental Council & Anor

On an appeal under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professional Act 2002, the court asks whether the disciplinary sanction was one which a reasonable tribunal could have imposed, having regard to the facts and the protective purpose of professional regulation. It must respect the tribunal’s fact-finding expertise, but intervene where there has been a material failure of reasoning or the sanction is manifestly inappropriate.

Dishonesty does not automatically constitute professional misconduct or require erasure. Its seriousness depends on the circumstances, including its connection with professional practice. In deciding between conditions and suspension, the tribunal must address insight, remediation, public protection and public confidence.

The Professional Standards Authority appealed under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professional Act 2002 against a Health Committee decision concerning a dentist, AB. The Committee found that AB had hepatitis B, had dishonestly answered a health questionnaire, had failed to acquaint himself with relevant guidance, and had recklessly continued exposure-prone procedures. It imposed conditions of practice for 18 months.

The Authority and the General Dental Council challenged the decision as inadequately reasoned and unduly lenient, particularly because of AB’s limited insight, patient risk, public confidence and delay in providing blood-test results.

1. Appeal allowed. The Conditions of Practice order was quashed and sanction was remitted to the same Committee.
2. Under section 29, the court asks whether the sanction was one which a disciplinary tribunal, having regard to the facts and protective purpose of professional regulation, could reasonably have imposed. Weight is due to the tribunal’s expertise, but intervention is required for material reasoning or procedural failures, or a manifestly inappropriate sanction.
3. The Committee was entitled to find AB generally credible and to accept that he believed himself non-infectious. One dishonest answer did not invalidate that assessment. Dishonesty does not automatically constitute professional misconduct or require erasure; its seriousness depends on the circumstances, including its connection with professional practice.
4. The failures to acquaint himself with guidance and to stop exposure-prone procedures constituted serious professional misconduct because patients were exposed to serious risk. The Committee inadequately addressed insight, responsibility, remediation and public confidence when selecting conditions rather than suspension.
5. The Committee also failed to determine whether AB was culpable for the delay in supplying blood-test results. That matter could be considered as an aggravating factor on sanction, although it was not appropriate to determine impairment on an uncharged allegation. The case was remitted for reconsideration of sanction only.

The judgment concerns a statutory appeal by the Professional Standards Authority against the General Dental Council Health Committee’s decision of 30 October 2015.