Monibi v General Dental Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Between 2007 and 2009, Mr. Monibi provided dental services, leading to disciplinary proceedings by the GDC due to complaints from Patient A. The PCC found him guilty of dishonesty in altering patient notes and suspended him for four months. Monibi appealed, challenging the factual findings and the punishment. The court quashed the dishonesty finding and the suspension but upheld other findings related to inadequate explanation and record-keeping.
Judgment
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith:
Introduction
Between 2007 and 2009 the Appellant, Mr Monibi, provided dental services to a patient known as Patient A in the course of which he extracted her Lower Left 7 tooth [“LL7”] and fixed an implant and crown in the position from which the tooth had been extracted. Patient A was dissatisfied with her treatment. The matter was referred to the Respondent GDC which instituted disciplinary proceedings. After a hearing lasting 12 days spread over three sessions in July 2013, November 2013 and January 2014 the Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC determined that key facts alleged against Mr Monibi were proved, including an allegation that he had dishonestly altered entries in his notes for Patient A. On the back of those findings, the PCC determined that his actions amounted to misconduct and that his dishonesty impaired his fitness to practice. It directed that his registration be suspended for four months.
Mr Monibi now appeals against that determination on the grounds that the findings of fact made by the PCC were wrong and that the suspension, which is contingent upon the finding of dishonesty, should be set aside.
The Charge Brought Against Mr Monibi
The basis for the proceedings before the PCC, by reference to which it made its findings, is the Charge. Mr Monibi made admissions in relation to some of the facts alleged, which were accordingly found proved by the PCC. Other allegations were considered by the PCC and either found proved or not proved. The terms of the Charge in its final form are set out at Annexe A, annotated to show which matters were admitted and proved (“A+P”), found proved (“P”) or found not proved (“NP”).
The Legal Framework and the Principles to be Applied
The framework provided by the Dentists Act 1984 and the applicable legal principles are not materially in dispute.
The GDC has a statutory duty by s.1(2) of the 1984 Act to promote high standards of professional conduct among dentists. By s.33(2) and Schedule 3 paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 1984 Act , the GDC shall make rules as to the procedure to be followed and rules of evidence to be observed in proceedings before the PCC. The current rules are The General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006/1663.
By s.27B(6) of the 1984 Act , as amended, the PCC may erase a dentist’s name from the register or suspend his registration for up to 12 months if they find his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of,