General Dental Council v Knee

An interim order suspending a dental professional’s registration may be extended where the extension remains necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest, and is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The court should consider the seriousness of the allegations, the continuing risk, the procedural progress of the fitness-to-practise case, the proposed duration, and any hardship to the registrant. A short extension may be justified to allow a forthcoming disciplinary hearing and any necessary time for final determination.

The General Dental Council applied for a further four-month extension of an interim suspension order concerning a dental nurse. The original order followed allegations that the respondent had taken patient payments and altered records to conceal the conduct. Previous extensions had been granted while the fitness-to-practise investigation progressed.

The case examiners had concluded that there was a real prospect of the facts being proved and had referred the matter to a Professional Conduct Committee. That hearing was listed for 19 to 30 July 2021. The issue was whether a further extension to 21 August 2021 was justified.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for four months, taking it to 21 August 2021.

2. Under section 36V(4) of the Dentists Act 1984, an interim order may be made where suspension is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the person concerned.

3. The allegations were serious. They involved a reasonable belief that the respondent had systematically taken patient charges and altered patient records to avoid detection. The seriousness of the allegations and the associated risk continued to justify interim protection while the fitness-to-practise proceedings remained unresolved.

4. The proposed extension was reasonable and proportionate. The case examiners had identified a real prospect that the facts would be proved and had referred the matter to a Professional Conduct Committee. The hearing dates were the first available in the circumstances, and the additional period allowed time for the committee to hear the case, reach a determination and address any short delay in final resolution.

5. The respondent had not advanced any basis for concluding that the extension would cause her hardship. In the circumstances, the order sought was made.

The judgment concerned an application to extend an interim order. It was not an appeal, and no appellate history was stated.