Held v General Dental Council (Administrative Court) 12 March 2015Mr Held appealed against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee ("PCC") to erase him from the register and raised a number
Held v General Dental Council (Administrative Court) 12 March 2015
Mr Held appealed against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee ("PCC") to erase him from the register and raised a number of grounds of appeal including that his failure to attend and give oral evidence counted against him.
Mr Held contended that the PCC ought not to have proceeded with the hearing in his absence. His Honour Judge Davis held that the decision to proceed in Mr Held's absence could not be faulted on the basis that he was aware of the need to obtain evidence to support his case; he had already decided that he would not attend and would not be represented; he had prepared the case he wished to go before the PCC in his absence; and even if his email could be read as a request for an adjournment there was no supporting medical evidence.
HHJ Davis stated that he had wondered at one stage whether or not it could be said that the PCC, having decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Held, ought to have afforded him the opportunity to make further representations as regards sanction once it had determined the allegations against him, as suggested by the divisional court in the case of Brabazon-Drenning v UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting 31 October 2000 (unreported). HHJ Davis noted that Mr Held had already made brief submissions on sanction in his correspondence; he had been given clear advice on his entitlement to make submissions on sanction once he knew the hearing was proceeding in his absence and he had not advanced any arguments as to sanction which he could have argued the PCC could not have known about. Accordingly it was not necessary for the PCC to have afforded him a further opportunity to make sanctions once it had determined the allegations against him.
HHJ Davis also refused permission for Mr Held to adduce further evidence on the basis that it was not just to allow him selectively to deploy additional statements without having at the same time taken the steps to obtain or disclose the relevant patient records as had been requested by the GDC.
Finally HHJ Davis noted that it was not incumbent on a tribunal such as the PCC to make extensive reference in the determination to each and every individual fact and matter raised by a defendant and to have to give a detailed explanation as to which facts and matters it accepted.
HHJ Davis held that the decision to erase was not inappropriate bearing in mind the obligation to have regard to the public interest and the profession's reputation as a whole, not just to the individual circumstances of the dentist, and the PCC's special expertise in making judgments on this issue. He held that the court could not interfere with the decision even though another PCC might have come to a different decision.
Mr Held appealed against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee ("PCC") to erase him from the register and raised a number of grounds of appeal including that his failure to attend and give oral evidence counted against him.
Mr Held contended that the PCC ought not to have proceeded with the hearing in his absence. His Honour Judge Davis held that the decision to proceed in Mr Held's absence could not be faulted on the basis that he was aware of the need to obtain evidence to support his case; he had already decided that he would not attend and would not be represented; he had prepared the case he wished to go before the PCC in his absence; and even if his email could be read as a request for an adjournment there was no supporting medical evidence.
HHJ Davis stated that he had wondered at one stage whether or not it could be said that the PCC, having decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Held, ought to have afforded him the opportunity to make further representations as regards sanction once it had determined the allegations against him, as suggested by the divisional court in the case of Brabazon-Drenning v UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting 31 October 2000 (unreported). HHJ Davis noted that Mr Held had already made brief submissions on sanction in his correspondence; he had been given clear advice on his entitlement to make submissions on sanction once he knew the hearing was proceeding in his absence and he had not advanced any arguments as to sanction which he could have argued the PCC could not have known about. Accordingly it was not necessary for the PCC to have afforded him a further opportunity to make sanctions once it had determined the allegations against him.
HHJ Davis also refused permission for Mr Held to adduce further evidence on the basis that it was not just to allow him selectively to deploy additional statements without having at the same time taken the steps to obtain or disclose the relevant patient records as had been requested by the GDC.
Finally HHJ Davis noted that it was not incumbent on a tribunal such as the PCC to make extensive reference in the determination to each and every individual fact and matter raised by a defendant and to have to give a detailed explanation as to which facts and matters it accepted.
HHJ Davis held that the decision to erase was not inappropriate bearing in mind the obligation to have regard to the public interest and the profession's reputation as a whole, not just to the individual circumstances of the dentist, and the PCC's special expertise in making judgments on this issue. He held that the court could not interfere with the decision even though another PCC might have come to a different decision.