HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC"

Tiffany Glenn
6 years ago
Views:

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LARKIN, Matthew Peter Registration No: 74917 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension Matthew Peter LARKIN, a dentist, BDS Lpool

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LARKIN, Matthew Peter Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension Matthew Peter LARKIN, a dentist, BDS Lpool 1998 was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 15 December 2017 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge That, being a registered dentist: 1. On 10 November 2016, you were convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of: (a) (b) three counts of cause/incite a male child aged under 16 to engage in sexual activity offender 18 or over no penetration; and three counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photograph of child. And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise as a dentist is impaired by reason of your conviction for a criminal offence. On 15 December 2017, the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: Mr Larkin The Committee has taken into account all the evidence presented to it. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with that advice it has considered each head of charge separately. On 10 November 2016 you entered a guilty plea at Liverpool Crown Court to three offences of Cause/incite a male child aged under 16 to engage in sexual activity offender 18 or over no penetration, and also three counts of making indecent photographs or pseudophotographs of a child contrary to S 160 of the Criminal Justice Act You were sentenced on the same day to twelve-months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. You were ordered to attend as and when instructed with an authorized provider of probation at the times and places and directed supervision 2 years. You were required to participate in an accredited Horizon Programme as directed. You were also given a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 10 years and required to pay a victim surcharge of 100. The Committee heard the submissions made on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC) by Ms Headley and those made on your behalf by Mr Kennedy. I will now announce the Committee s findings in relation to each head of charge: LARKIN, M P Professional Conduct Committee December 2017 Page -1/5-

2 1(a). 1(b). Admitted and found proved. The Committee accepted your admission and the memorandum of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction. Admitted and found proved. The Committee accepted your admission and the memorandum of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction. The Committee then proceeded to Stage Two of its procedure to determine whether your fitness to practise as a dentist is currently impaired by reason of your conviction. On 15 December 2017, the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Mr Larkin, The Committee considered all the evidence presented to it, including your oral evidence. It took account of the submissions made by Ms Headley on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC) and those from Mr Kennedy on your behalf. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The considerations for the Committee at this second stage of the hearing have been to consider whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your conviction and, if so, what sanction, if any, to impose on your registration. Decision on impairment by reason of conviction In reaching its decision on the issue of current impairment, the Committee exercised its independent judgement. It had regard to the over-arching objective of the GDC, which involves: the protection, promotion and maintenance of the health, safety and well-being of the public; the promotion and maintenance of public confidence in the dental profession; and the promotion and maintenance of proper professional standards and conduct for the members of the dental profession. The Committee had regard to the serious nature of your conviction and was of the view that it is difficult, but not impossible to remedy conduct of this kind. In considering whether there has been any remediation on your part, the Committee had regard to your oral evidence on the matters in this case. By way of background, you explained to the Committee that since your arrest you have not undertaken any paid work. You have found it difficult to look past both the criminal and regulatory process. However, you state you would like to return to dentistry and have kept your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) up to date. You have supplied various testimonials from former patients and your friends and family. You stated that at the time of the offence, you were experiencing difficulties with your partner and started to visit website chatrooms. It was here that you started to look at unlawful pornography. You told the Committee that since your conviction, you have attended the Horizon Programme between 31 January 2017 and 8 August 2017 which comprised of numerous group sessions discussing various topics. You state that you have been able to reflect and strengthen weaknesses in your character to ensure there is no repetition of your past behaviour. You went on to tell the Committee of the impact that your conviction and subsequent sentence has had on your personal and family life. You apologised to those concerned LARKIN, M P Professional Conduct Committee December 2017 Page -2/5-

3 including the victims of your past actions. You also showed recognition of the potential impact of your behaviour on the reputation of the dental profession. You state that you have come out of this process stronger and are able to deal with certain issues better. You now have safeguards in place, such as support networks, family and friends, to ensure no repetition of your past behaviour. You recognised that your fitness to practise is currently impaired because of your conviction for what is a serious criminal offence. The Committee found you to be a credible and reliable witness. It took into account your frank and open acknowledgement that your conduct was incompatible with a healthcare professional. It was clear to the Committee from your evidence that you have reflected on your wrongdoing. Further, it took into account the answers you gave in response to questions from the Committee and it was satisfied you now have a much deeper understanding of your own behaviour as well as the behaviour of others. Whilst the Committee took into account that your offence did not occur within the context of your work as a dentist, it had regard to the broader public safety implications in this case. Being involved with indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child, does raise concerns about the risk of harm to the public. You assured the Committee that you would never become involved in anything like this again. Having considered your evidence and all the circumstances of this case, the Committee concluded that the likelihood of repetition on your part is not high. However, you were only recently convicted, and the Committee considers that it is too early to be able to properly determine the risk of repetition. It was therefore satisfied that there remains a risk of significant harm to the public. The Committee was in no doubt that a finding of current impairment is required in the wider public interest. You have been convicted of a serious criminal offence for which you received a custodial sentence. The Committee decided that public confidence in the dental profession would be severely undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances. Further, a finding is necessary to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession. The Committee noted your acknowledgement in this regard. The Committee has determined that your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your conviction. Decision on sanction The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on your registration. The purpose of a sanction is protect the public interest, it is not to be punitive, although it may have that effect. The Committee took into account the Guidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (effective from October 2016). It considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least restrictive. The Committee applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with your own interests. It also took into account the case of Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin). In considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee had regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the serious nature of the offence for which you were convicted, that your offending persisted over a period of some months, and you were sentenced to a period of imprisonment, albeit suspended. In mitigation, the Committee considered your LARKIN, M P Professional Conduct Committee December 2017 Page -3/5-

4 demonstrations of insight and remorse, as well as some positive testimonial evidence provided to it, which indicates that you are an otherwise competent and caring dentist. Taking all these factors into account, the Committee considered the individual sanctions. Given the nature of your conviction and its potential to significantly undermine public confidence in the dental profession, the Committee decided that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case without taking any action. The Committee reached the same conclusion in respect of a reprimand. It considered that these outcomes would be not be proportionate or sufficient to satisfy the public interest. Whilst the Committee did consider the sanction of conditions, it was of the view that conditional registration would neither be suitable or appropriate in a case such as this one. You have only just recently completed the Horizon Programme totalling 58 hours, and considers your remediation is still in its early infancy. The Committee is satisfied that there are no workable conditions that it could impose in the circumstances and it decided that the matters in this case were too serious in any event. Your suspended sentence is still in force as is your probation for another year, so conditions would also be inappropriate. The Committee therefore considered whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to suspend your registration. In doing so, it had regard to the remorse and insight you have shown. However, having taken into account the aggravating features of this case, the Committee was not satisfied that public protection and also public confidence in the dental profession would be sufficiently protected by the suspension of your registration. You were an active participant in the making of indecent photographs over a period of time and became involved in causing/inciting a male child under the age of 16 to engage in sexual activity. The Committee notes that some of the images were category A. The Committee had regard to the fact that this is fundamentally incompatible with the professional standards and position of a registered dental professional. The Committee considered that the gravity of these matters cannot be marked sufficiently with a period of suspension. In reaching its conclusion, the Committee took into account your mitigation and the potential consequences for you in being removed from GDC Register. However, it was satisfied that the need to protect the public and also to maintain public confidence and uphold proper standards outweighed your own interests. Your behaviour was wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. The Committee also took into account the relevant case law, in particular the case of Fleischmann paragraphs 52, 53 and 54. The Committee noted that the sentence given to you was for a period of 12 months, suspended for 24 months, as well as being given a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and being placed on the Sex Offenders Register both for a period of 10 years. Taking of all of this into account, the Committee has determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is that of erasure. Unless you exercise your right of appeal, your name will be erased from the Dentists Register, 28 days from the date when notice of this determination has been deemed to have been served upon you. The Committee now invites submissions from Ms Headley on behalf of the GDC and from Mr Kennedy, as to whether your registration should be suspended immediately to cover the appeal period. LARKIN, M P Professional Conduct Committee December 2017 Page -4/5-

5 Mr Larkin, In deciding whether to impose an immediate order on your registration, the Committee took account of the submissions made by Ms Headley. It accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee has determined that it is in the public interest to impose an order suspending your registration immediately. It considered that, given the gravity of the matters found against you, immediate action is required to protect public confidence in the dental profession. The Committee considered that the public would have a real sense of concern if an immediate order were not made for the reasons given above. The effect of the foregoing determination and this order is that your registration is suspended immediately to cover the appeal period. If you do not appeal, the substantive direction for erasure, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from the date when notice is deemed to have been served upon you. Should you exercise your right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal. The interim order currently on your registration is hereby revoked. That concludes this hearing. LARKIN, M P Professional Conduct Committee December 2017 Page -5/5-

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MAYCOCK, Andrew Edward Registration No: 170502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2018 Outcome: Erased with Immediate order of Suspension Andrew Edward MAYCOCK, a dental nurse,