Abdelwahab Ibraheem Shehab v General Dental Council

A court exercising jurisdiction under section 32(12) of the Dentists Act 1984 must decide for itself whether interim conditions are necessary and proportionate, while giving appropriate respect to the expertise of the regulatory committee.

In assessing risk, sexist and demeaning words or gestures in a professional healthcare setting may be as serious as physical impropriety. Where allegations include conduct capable of being repeated without detection, deterrent measures such as questionnaires and reporting requirements may be insufficient. A precautionary condition designed to prevent repetition may be proportionate, even where it makes employment more difficult, provided the evidence does not establish that employment is impossible.

The claimant, a dentist, challenged under section 32(12)(b) of the Dentists Act 1984 an Interim Orders Committee decision imposing conditional registration for 18 months. The conditions included continuous chaperonage by an approved GDC registrant and notification of the conditions to dental staff.

The order followed allegations of sexist and demeaning comments and gestures towards female staff and patients, including an allegation that the claimant locked himself in a room with a dental nurse. The claimant accepted that a risk required mitigation but argued that chaperonage was disproportionate and proposed staff and patient questionnaires with reporting to the GDC. The central issue was whether the chaperonage condition was proportionate to the risk.

1. The claim was dismissed. The chaperonage condition was not shown to be disproportionate to the risk, and costs of £9,291.60 were awarded to the GDC.

2. Section 32(12) conferred an original jurisdiction on the court rather than a judicial-review function. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments for itself, while respecting the expertise of the IOC as a specialist professional regulator.

3. The allegations of sexist and demeaning words or gestures could not be treated as minor merely because they did not involve physical touching. In a professional healthcare setting, such conduct could seriously affect staff and patients and raised serious regulatory concerns.

4. The allegation that the claimant had locked himself in a room with a dental nurse materially increased the concern and created a need for conditions capable of preventing repetition. Questionnaires and regular reporting might have a deterrent effect, but would not ensure that such conduct could not recur or that it would be promptly reported.

5. The court considered the evidence that the condition made employment difficult. Two rejected applications did not establish that employment as a qualified dentist was impossible. On the evidence before the court, there was no workable alternative to the chaperonage condition, which was therefore proportionate.

6. The statutory review safeguards remained available, enabling the claimant to seek reconsideration of the conditions if circumstances changed.

This was a first-instance application in the Administrative Court. The claimant challenged the IOC’s original decision of 16 November 2022 and, with permission, its review decision of 23 January 2023.