The General Dental Council (GDC) has said it will appeal a recent High Court decision that ruled the GDC had acted in a ‘wrong and unjust’ manner.
The judgement was made in reference to a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) case where a dentist was suspended after he was found to have stalked and harassed a woman.
While he accepted the factual findings and the rulings that his fitness to practise was impaired, he launched an appeal regarding the length of the suspension, which was set at nine months.
He also sought termination of the immediate suspension order. Additionally, he appealed the GDC’s interpretation and practice relating to the effect of the interaction between the immediate suspension order and the direction for suspension on the total duration of his suspension.
‘Wrong in law’
In the High Court case Aga vs GDC, the judge dismissed the appeal on the grounds put forwards in relation to the duration of the sanction.
However, the appeal was granted on the ancillary ground relating to the GDC’s practice or interpretation of making the duration of the direction for suspension consecutive to the duration of the immediate order for suspension.
It read: ‘In my judgment it is wrong in law for the PCC to impose a suspension direction and to ignore the soon to be made immediate suspension order in the light of the effects of the latter.
‘It is wrong and unjust to make a direction for suspension and an immediate suspension order which together have the effect of increasing the length of the suspension, beyond the statutory maximum, just because the dentist appeals.
‘So, I set aside the direction for suspension for nine months because, in conjunction with the immediate suspension order made by the PCC, without clear wording of set off, it was being interpreted by the GDC as effectively becoming a suspension of 13.5 months, which is more that the statutory maximum and wrong in principle.’
Treated separately
Now, the GDC has hit back and said it plans to appeal the decision.
Currently, the regulator can impose both immediate and substantive suspension orders when it is satisfied that it is necessary to protect the public or is otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the registrant.
Each of these suspension orders is made as a result of a hearing and they are treated separately, as consecutive orders.
In a new release, it said: ‘The substantive order takes effect when either the appeal period has expired and no appeal was brought or at the conclusion of the appeal (section 29 of the DA).
‘The immediate order covers the period until the substantive order takes effect. The registrant may remain under the immediate order of suspension until the substantive order takes effect.
‘The GDC, in common with other healthcare regulators, considers immediate orders (s30 DA) as separate from substantive orders that result from a hearing (s27B DA), so that the section 30 order covers the period before the substantive order takes effect.’
Longstanding interpretation
It added: ‘When an immediate order is imposed, we provide registrants and legal advisors with clear information about the effect of an immediate suspension order so that they can take an informed decision about whether to appeal.
‘The recent ruling disagreed with the longstanding interpretation of the legislation. We firmly believe that this is a departure from the plain meaning of the legislation. We need clarity on this point so that the regulatory framework, guidance and practice are unequivocally clear.’
It confirmed that it will provide updates when it has information to share.
You can read more about the GDC’s plan to appeal here.
Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.
