Warning: This story contains comments of a racist nature and references to sexual violence
A dentist has been erased from the GDC register for racist, sexist and homophobic discrimination after a protracted case involving multiple hearings and a High Court appeal.
A newly constituted Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) imposed erasure at a hearing on 26 October, alongside immediate suspension while the outcome remains subject to appeal.
In July 2025, the dentist in question was suspended for six months by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) for repeatedly behaving inappropriately to colleagues and patients.
The original PCC report detailed testimony from practice staff who reported hearing comments such as ‘I have my rape eye on you’, and being told about a ranking system for women the dentist wanted to ‘shag’. They said they were asked in detail about their sex lives and threatened with ‘dick pictures’, with one colleague disclosing that the dentist stroked their arms inappropriately on multiple occasions.
The clinician was also found to have commented on the bodies of female patients, including that it was a ‘shame’ that a patient had ‘a pretty face but such a small chest’.
More generalised comments that women ‘belong in the kitchen’, as well as racist and homophobic remarks, were also noted. For example, the dentist was quoted saying that they would ‘pour acid’ on their own daughter if she brought home a black man. They also told a colleague: ‘I hate gays, but I like you.’
However, the General Dental Council (GDC) then supported a Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appeal arguing that the sanction was insufficient and that they should have been erased.
Why was the dentist not erased originally?
The PCC had imposed a six-month suspension after finding that erasure would be disproportionate. This decision was informed by previous good character, some evidence of reflection and remediation, and developing insight.
However, it also found that the registrant’s insight and remediation remained limited, and did not treat some comments as sexual in nature. Discussion of patients’ bodies, for example, was seen to be inappropriate but with ‘nothing to suggest that it was made in a sexual manner’.
At a review hearing in February 2026, a separate PCC found that the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and that it could not be satisfied that a risk of repetition was highly unlikely. However, it revoked the suspension and imposed conditions for 18 months, allowing the registrant to return to practice under restrictions including workplace reporting and notifying the GDC of any disciplinary action.
In the subsequent High Court hearing in June 2026, Justice Sweeting found that the original committee had materially underestimated the seriousness of the dentist’s misconduct and failed to grapple with the cumulative gravity of the conduct it had found proved.
Although the High Court had the power to substitute erasure, Justice Sweeting said sanction in a case of this kind involved a ‘multifactorial evaluative exercise’ that was usually best carried out by a specialist tribunal. The case was therefore sent back to a newly constituted PCC to reconsider sanction.
Following an appeal period, the dentist will be barred from practising.
Create a free account for unlimited access — plus the Dentistry Bulletin delivered to your inbox.
