HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE"

Eleanor Adams
5 years ago
Views:

1 HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from the text. ROBERTSON, Harry Gordon Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JUNE - JULY 2014 Outcome: Erased with immediate suspension Harry Gordon ROBERTSON, MFGDP(UK) 1993, MGDS RCPS Glasg 1990, BDS Glasg 1982, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 30 June 2014 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (as amended with agreement on 30 June 2014) That being a registered dentist: 1. PRIVATE 2. PRIVATE 3. PRIVATE 4. PRIVATE a. PRIVATE b. PRIVATE c. PRIVATE 5. PRIVATE 6. PRIVATE a. PRIVATE b. PRIVATE 7. PRIVATE. 8. PRIVATE 9. On or around 16 July 2013 you acted unprofessionally during a telephone call with an employee of NHS G&C, in that your behavior was threatening and/or aggressive. And that, in consequence of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your adverse physical and/or mental health and/or misconduct. On 3 July 2014 the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: ROBERTSON, H G Professional Conduct Committee June - July 2014 Page -1/5-

2 Mr Robertson, The Committee has considered the oral and documentary evidence presented to it in this case. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee reminded itself that the burden of proof lies with the General Dental Council (GDC) and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, which is on the balance of probabilities. You are required to prove nothing. At the commencement of these proceedings, Mr Forde QC, on your behalf, made a preliminary application that this hearing be heard entirely in private pursuant to Rule 53(1)(a) of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (the Rules). Mr Singh did not oppose the application. The Committee took legal advice and acceded to the application. The rest of the hearing proceeded in private. In relation to the allegations of dishonesty, the advice to the Committee by the Legal Adviser was to adopt the two-stage test of dishonesty from R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 which provides that in determining whether a registrant had acted dishonestly, the panel will ask itself: 1. Was what the registrant did dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? It is for the panel to decide what those standards are and to apply them to this question. If the panel is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that reasonable and honest people would consider the registrant s actions to have been dishonest then that is the end of the issue, If, however, the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that reasonable and honest people would consider the registrant s actions to have been dishonest the panel should move to the second question. 2. Must the registrant have realised that what he was doing would be considered dishonest by those standards? In other words, the panel is drawing an inference as to the registrant s state of mind. If the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the registrant knew what he was doing was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people then the panel will find that he was dishonest, whether he personally believed it to be dishonest or not. The Committee s findings in relation to each paragraph of the charge are as follows: 1. Admitted and proved 2. Admitted and proved 3. As amended, admitted and proved 4 (a) Admitted and proved 4 (b) Admitted and proved 4 (c) Admitted and proved 5. Admitted and proved 6 (a) Admitted and proved 6 (b) Admitted and proved ROBERTSON, H G Professional Conduct Committee June - July 2014 Page -2/5-

3 7. Admitted in so far as it relates to 6(b) and proved Not admitted in relation to 6(a) but proved 8. As amended, admitted and proved 9 Not admitted and not proved We move to Stage Two. The Committee had no independent evidence to support this allegation. It considered the account given by Dr P and your account. The Committee is satisfied that there was a heated discussion between two professionals and that Dr P was not prepared to disclose the purpose of her visit to your practice. It bore in mind that you had cooperated fully with a previous visit by Dr A. The Committee finds that Dr P was unreasonable in her refusal to explain the purpose of her proposed visit to your practice and your reaction was proportionate. The Committee accepted your evidence that you were firm and assertive in the way in which you spoke to Dr P but it has not been proved that you over-stepped the mark and became threatening and/or aggressive. The hearing was adjourned on 4 July 2014 and resumed on 22 July On 22 July 2014 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Mr Robertson, Having announced its decision on the facts, the Committee then heard further oral evidence from you. It considered the additional documentary evidence presented on your behalf. The Committee took account of the submissions made by Mr Singh, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC) and those made by Mr Forde QC, on your behalf. It accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Misconduct The Committee first considered whether its findings of fact amount to misconduct in respect of its findings in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. The Committee was given legal advice, which it accepted, that misconduct involved some act or omission which fell short of what would be proper in the circumstances. It was further advised that the standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. This guidance was from Roylance v GMC (2) [2000] 1 A.C The Committee was further advised that the misconduct should be serious before it could be said to constitute professional misconduct. The Committee was told that you have no previous fitness to practise history and you practised dentistry without blemish between 1982 and Your actions breached the following: Standards for Dental Professionals, May 2005: ROBERTSON, H G Professional Conduct Committee June - July 2014 Page -3/5-

4 Impairment Principle 1: Putting patients interest first and acting to protect them. 1.1 Put patients interest before your own or those of any colleague, organisation or business. Principle 5: Maintain your professional knowledge and competence 5.4 Find out about laws and regulations which affect your work, premises, equipment and business, and follow them. Principle 6: Be trustworthy 6.1 Justify the trust that your patients, the public and your colleagues have in you by always acting honestly and fairly. 6.2 Apply these principles to clinical and professional relationships, and any business or educational activities you are involved in. 6.3 Maintain appropriate standards of personal behaviour in all walks of life so that patients have confidence in you and the public have confidence in the dental profession. Principles of Dental Team Working, January 2006: Principle 3: Your individual responsibilities within the team 3.1 All members of the dental team who have registered with us are individually responsible and accountable for their own actions and for the treatment or processes which they carry out. This includes your responsibility for co-operating with other team members in the best interests of patients. Principles of Raising Concerns, May 2006: The Committee was advised that the impact of the cases of Cohen v GMC [2007] EWHC 581, Meadow v GMC [2007] QB 462 and CHRE v NMC and Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), was important in their consideration of impairment. In particular in the case of Grant it was emphasised that the Committee must consider the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Committee accepted this advice. Sanction Having found your fitness to practise to be impaired the Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose upon your registration. It reminded itself that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive although they may have that effect. The Committee bore in mind the principle of proportionality and its duty to protect the public and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. It carefully considered the GDC s Guidance for the Professional Conduct Committee, November In accordance with legal advice, the Committee considered the available sanctions in ascending order. The Committee was of the view that to conclude this case with no further action would be inappropriate given the seriousness of its findings of dishonesty and the nature of that dishonesty. ROBERTSON, H G Professional Conduct Committee June - July 2014 Page -4/5-

5 The Committee then considered whether to impose conditions on your registration and noted that conditions must be clear; relevant; necessary to protect patients, the public or in the interests of the registrant; proportionate to the impairment; formulated so that conditions are not in effect a suspension; and written in such a way that compliance can be easily verified. The Committee was of the view that the gravity of the dishonest conduct found proved and its duration was such that conditions would not be appropriate. It further concluded that to impose conditions on your registration would be tantamount to a suspension. The Committee then considered whether suspension would deal adequately with the severity of your misconduct. Suspension would not adequately reflect this and any sanction less than erasure would undermine public confidence in the regulatory process. This sanction is therefore only imposed for your misconduct found in relation to charges 3,4,5,6 and 7. The Committee therefore directs, pursuant to Section 27B(6)(a) of the Dentists Act 1984, as amended, that your name be erased from the Dentists Register. The Committee will now invite submissions on whether an immediate order of suspension is necessary. Mr Singh Any interim order currently associated with this case is hereby revoked The Committee has considered your application to impose an immediate order for suspension. It has listened carefully to both your and Mr Forde s submissions on the matter. It has accepted the advice of the legal adviser. The Committee has determined that it is appropriate to erase the name of Harry Gordon Robertson from the Dentists Register. It has further determined that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest to impose an immediate order suspending his name from the Register. The effect of the foregoing direction and order is that Mr Robertson s name is suspended from the Dentists Register forthwith and, unless he exercises his right of appeal, the name of Harry Gordon Robertson will be erased from the Dentists Register after 28 days have elapsed. That concludes the case. ROBERTSON, H G Professional Conduct Committee June - July 2014 Page -5/5-

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HOUGHTON, Nicola Louise Registration No: 130502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2015 Outcome: Erasure (with immediate order) Nicola Louise HOUGHTON, Verified competency