The High Court has ordered the interim suspension of a registered dentist while the Dental Council’s complaint process proceeds, after finding that the allegations disclosed a real and substantial immediate risk to the public. The court stressed that it was not deciding whether the allegations were true.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2024, Mr Justice David Barniville granted the orders sought under section 44 of the Dentists Act 1985 and rejected undertakings offered by the dentist. The orders are to remain in place until further order of the court. The court said it would review the position in February 2025, including the status of any criminal proceedings and the likely timetable for Fitness to Practise proceedings.
The Council’s application followed an ongoing Health Products Regulatory Authority investigation. The Council said a statement and other material, including video footage, supported allegations that the dentist supplied or offered medicines to a person who was not his patient. The alleged products included an unlicensed botulinum toxin product and prescription-only medicines, including Lidocaine, Liporase and Ozempic. The Council also alleged offers to supply larger quantities and training in Botox administration.
The dentist denied wrongdoing. His representatives argued that there was no immediate danger, that the allegations did not concern treatment of his own patients, and that suspension would affect his livelihood, family and patients receiving ongoing care. They offered undertakings including restrictions on supplying medicines, monthly information to the Council and practice inspections. The Council opposed those undertakings as inadequate and impractical.
The judge said the court’s role at this stage was not to resolve the complaint or make findings of fact. He considered the evidence, including contemporaneous video footage, and concluded that the case appeared strong for the interim application. He found that the alleged conduct had sufficient links to the dentist’s practice and that, if upheld at a Fitness to Practise inquiry, it could attract suspension or cancellation of registration.
The judge weighed public protection against the dentist’s rights, the presumption of innocence, potential loss of income and the impact on patients. He concluded that the undertakings did not adequately address the risks. The judgment says the court would hear the parties on costs and consequential matters on 6 November 2024, and on redactions before reasons were published.