Alghofari v GDC

On an appeal against a professional disciplinary sanction, the High Court must respect the specialist tribunal’s expertise and should not substitute its own view where the decision was properly open to the tribunal. The court may intervene for material errors of fact or law and may review the application of legal principles, but the exercise is a secondary judgment rather than re-sentencing.

Erasure may be appropriate where serious dishonesty and the nature of the offence make continued professional registration incompatible with public confidence. Personal hardship, the absence of patient harm or financial gain, and punishment imposed in another jurisdiction do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in maintaining professional standards and confidence.

Mr Alghofari appealed against the sanction imposed by the General Dental Council’s Professional Conduct Committee following findings concerning a French conviction for forging a UK visa endorsement and failing to notify the GDC of the criminal proceedings and conviction.

The Committee found that the failure to disclose the proceedings was misleading but not dishonest. It found that the failure to disclose the conviction was dishonest. It erased him from the register, permitting an application for restoration after five years. The appeal challenged the seriousness attributed to the non-disclosure, the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors, the choice of erasure rather than suspension, and the proportionality of the sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Professional Conduct Committee had applied the proper approach to sanction and its decision was plainly open to it.
2. On an appeal from a professional disciplinary tribunal, the court must give appropriate weight to the tribunal’s specialist understanding of professional standards and to its opportunity to hear and see the witnesses. Findings of primary and secondary fact and the overall evaluative judgment are matters on which different reasonable decisions may be possible. The court may correct material errors of fact or law and conduct a secondary judgment on the application of legal principles, but it must not re-sentence or substitute its own view of the merits. The approach in Meadow v The General Medical Council [2007] QB 462 and Rashid v General Medical Council [2007] 1 WLR 1460 was applicable.
3. The Committee was entitled to consider the dishonesty involved in the underlying offence, the attempted concealment, the failure to notify the GDC of the conviction, and the limited insight revealed by the evidence. It did not retry the French criminal charge. The French fine did not determine the appropriate professional sanction in England.
4. The Committee had considered the sanctions in ascending order, together with aggravating and mitigating factors. It took account of previous good character, subsequent good conduct, the absence of patient harm and financial gain, and the apology. It was nevertheless entitled to find that the deliberate and premeditated conduct, the seriousness of the offence, the attempted cover-up and insufficient insight made erasure necessary to protect public confidence.
5. The professional jurisdiction is not primarily punitive. In accordance with the approach stated in Bolton v The Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32, personal hardship and the effect of loss of practice do not make suspension or erasure wrong where the sanction is otherwise justified. The appeal was dismissed.

• General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee: found the relevant misconduct and ordered erasure from the register, with restoration capable of being sought after five years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against sanction.