The appellant dentist (F) appealed to the High Court against a decision by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the PCC") of the General Dental Council ("the GDC") that his fitness to practice was
The appellant dentist (F) appealed to the High Court against a decision by the Professional Conduct Committee ("the PCC") of the General Dental Council ("the GDC") that his fitness to practice was impaired due to misconduct and as such his name should be removed from the register.
The GDC started disciplinary proceedings against F due to allegations of fraud. F applied for his name to be voluntarily removed from the register, but this was refused on the grounds that it was in the public interest for the allegations to be fully investigated.
Subsequently F was found not to have completed the required CPD hours. Although the GDC had a policy of not removing dentists from the register for this reason if they were the subject of fitness to practise proceedings, F was warned by the GDC that he must complete his CPD or face erasure from the register.
Despite internal checks, the staff responsible for CPD checks were not informed of the disciplinary proceedings against F. F was therefore informed that the Registrar had decided that his name would be removed from the register in respect of his CPD breaches. He did not appeal against this decision.
The GDC discovered the error prior to removal and F's name was not actually removed from the register, but he was not informed of this until shortly before the hearing. At the hearing F argued that the PCC did not have jurisdiction to continue as F had been told he was going to be erased from the register and as such he was no longer a registered dentist. The PCC rejected this argument on the basis that the decision not to remove F had been an administrative one which could be revoked, and allowed the hearing to continue. The PCC subsequently found eight of the nine charges against F proved and that his fitness to practise was impaired. He was removed from the register.
F appealed the decision of the PCC to allow the hearing to continue, again on the basis that the PCC did not have jurisdiction to consider the allegations. Mr Justice Keith considered the decision of Akewushola v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 1 WLR 2295, where it was held that a statutory tribunal only had the power to correct a slip or accidental error which did not substantially affect the parties' rights or the final decision, and that other errors needed to be corrected by a higher body. His lorship held that the decision to remove F from the register for CPD reasons could not be held to be an accidental error as it had been intended, even though it had been made in ignorance of the true facts.
However, Keith J went on to consider the decision of Porteous v West Dorset District Council [2004] EWCA 244. Porteous held that public body can revisit a decision made in ignorance of the true facts when its factual basis "amounted to a fundamental mistake of fact." He noted that in both Porteous and the present case a decision had been made in ignorance of the true fact, in the present case that F had been removed from the register for CPD failings in ignorance of the fact he was subject to fitness to practise proceedings. Based on this, he held that in the present case the Registrar did have the power to revisit the decision to remove F from the register. The judge noted that by ruling that F had had his name removed from the register due to the fitness to practice decision rather than inadequate CPD, it would be much more challenging for him to attempt to register as a dentist again in the future.
This case is helpful to regulatory bodies in allowing certain administrative decisions to be reconsidered in light of new facts. However the circumstances in which this may happen are still somewhat uncertain, and clear communication within the regulator (and with the affected registrant) will still serve as the best protection against errors in decisions to strike off.