The High Court has rejected a dentist’s application to cancel the Dental Council’s decision to erase him from the Register of Dentists, finding that the committee’s professional misconduct findings were open to it on the evidence. The court did not decide any further issue about sanction, saying it would hear the parties on that question.
The appeal concerned the Council’s 1 June 2011 decision, which accepted a Fitness to Practice Committee recommendation following findings on four allegations. A second allegation was not proved. The committee recommended erasure, and the Council decided to remove the dentist from the register.
The allegations arose from the dentist’s registrations in Ireland, Estonia and Finland. The committee found that his Irish registration had been procured dishonestly or through concealment of material facts; that he practised or held himself out as registered in Ireland in circumstances linked to the earlier allegations; that he submitted or relied on a fraudulent or misleading document to obtain Estonian registration; and that he obtained Finnish registration through fraud or misrepresentation.
The disputed document purported to show that the UK General Dental Council had granted the dentist full registration in 2000. The court reviewed evidence that the dentist had held only temporary registration in the UK, from March to August 2002, and that the document was not a genuine GDC record. An Estonian official testified that the document was accepted in the registration process and that registration in another EU country supported the application. The Estonian authorities later removed the dentist from their register after concluding the document was false. He did not appeal that decision.
The dentist argued that the committee lacked evidence proving he had supplied the document to Estonia or that it had led to his Finnish registration. His counsel also raised concerns about an unnamed person whose emails prompted the inquiry, Skype evidence interruptions, and the last-minute substitution of an Estonian witness.
Justice Dunne found no unfair procedure in keeping the email author’s identity confidential, treating the person as within informer privilege. The Skype interruptions were minor and did not unduly interfere with cross-examination, the judge said. The substitute witness was able to give evidence about the Estonian events, and the change caused no demonstrated disadvantage.
Although the court accepted that the evidence did not identify who faxed the disputed document to Estonia, it held that the committee could rely on the application materials, the accompanying documents and the Estonian official’s evidence. The judge concluded that the document was crucial to the Estonian registration and that there was no evidential gap requiring the findings to be set aside.
The application to cancel the Council’s decision was rejected. The judgment, delivered on 21 December 2011, left sanction for a further hearing.