HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC CROOK, Stacey Registration No: 199655 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension This case was heard in parallel with the case of MOLLOY, Lucy [Registration number:242797] Stacey CROOK, a dental nurse, NVQ L3 Dental Nursing & VRQ L3 Dental Nursing City & Guilds 2010, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 17 August 2017 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge That being registered as a dental care professional: 1. On 17 June 2016 you were convicted at Carlisle Crown Court for dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk. And that, in consequence of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction. On 17 August 2017 the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: Service and proceeding in the absence of the Registrant Miss Crook is not present or represented at this Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) hearing of her case. Ms Headley appears on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC). In the absence of Miss Crook, the Committee first considered whether the GDC had complied with serving the Notice of Hearing letter on Miss Crook in accordance with Rules 13 and 65 of the GDC (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (the Rules). The Committee has received a copy of the Notice of Hearing letter dated 7 July 2017 which was sent by the GDC to Miss Crook s registered address by special delivery. The letter sets out the date, time and location of today s hearing, as well as the charge against Miss Crook, and the Committee is satisfied that it is in compliance with Rule 13. The Royal Mail receipt confirms that it attempted delivery of the item to Miss Crook s registered address but that it was delivered back to sender on 31 July 2017. The Committee is aware that for the purposes of compliance with the Rules, the GDC need only prove that it has sent the Notice of Hearing letter to the Registrant more than 28 days before this hearing and having regard to all the documents the Committee is satisfied that the GDC has complied with that requirement. Finally, the Committee has seen a copy of an email dated 7 July 2017 from the GDC s Assistant Prosecution Lawyer to Miss Crook s email address, in which he refers her to a letter regarding today s hearing and a download receipt dated 7 July 2017. Miss Crook CROOK, S Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -1/5-
sent an email to the Assistant Prosecution Lawyer on 7 July 2017 in which she refers to today s hearing. Given this information, and having accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser, the Committee is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made by the GDC to serve the Notice of Hearing on Miss Crook and that the GDC has complied with the requirements of service in accordance with Rules 13 and 65. The Committee then went on to consider whether to hear this case in the absence of Miss Crook in accordance with Rule 54. Ms Headley, on behalf of the GDC, invited the Committee to proceed in the absence of Miss Crook and made submissions in support of that application. The Committee has considered the submissions made by Ms Headley. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It has borne in mind that the discretion to proceed in the absence of the respondent must be exercised with the utmost care and caution and that it must have in mind the need for fairness to Miss Crook. It notes from Miss Crook s email to the GDC dated 7 July 2017 her indication that she is unable to attend today s hearing as she is away. In her subsequent email to the GDC dated 26 July 2017 Miss Crook states: I would prefer to have my say at the hearing but if it needs to go ahead that day I am happy for it to go ahead I would just put what I have to say in writing to yourself. The Committee has drawn the inference that Miss Crook has voluntarily absented herself from today s hearing. It notes that Miss Crook has not sought an adjournment of today s hearing and there is nothing before the Committee today to suggest that she would attend a future hearing, were it minded to adjourn. The Committee is also guided by the main statutory objective of the regulator namely the protection, promotion and maintenance and safety of the public. It has in mind the importance of the expeditious disposal of the allegations against Miss Crook. Having regard to all these factors, the Committee has decided that it is fair and appropriate to proceed in the absence of Miss Crook in accordance with Rule 54. The GDC s case against Miss Crook In relation to the substantive matter in this case, the Committee has considered all the documentary evidence contained in the prosecution bundle. It has taken into account the submissions made by Ms Headley. The Committee has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. This case concerns Miss Crook s conviction on 17 June 2016 at Carlisle Crown Court for dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another to cause loss to other/expose other to risk. On 18 November 2016 Miss Crook was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years. She was required to carry out unpaid work for 75 hours before 17 November 2017 and to pay compensation of 1000 and to pay victim surcharge of 80. The Committee has seen a copy of the certificate of conviction dated 22 November 2016, which, in accordance with Rule 57(5), it has accepted as conclusive proof of Miss Crook s conviction. The Committee therefore finds the charge proved. It moves on to stage two of these proceedings. On 17 August 2017. the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Ms Headley, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), made submissions in accordance with Rule 20(1)(a) of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2006. She invited the Committee to conclude that Miss Crook s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction and submitted that the appropriate sanction in this case is that of erasure. During the course of her submissions, Ms Headley referred the Committee to relevant CROOK, S Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -2/5-
sections of the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (October 2016). She confirmed that Miss Crook has no fitness to practise history. The Committee first considered whether Miss Crook s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction. In doing so, it exercised its independent judgement. Throughout its deliberations, it has borne in mind its primary duty to protect the public interest. The public interest includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee has had regard to the submissions made by Ms Headley at this stage of the proceedings. It has also had regard to the circumstances surrounding Miss Crook s offence, as set out in the transcripts of the interviews between Cumbria police and Miss Crook dated 9 January 2015. This was in relation to her involvement in a staged car crash on 13 June 2013. Miss Crook was a passenger in a car driven by Miss Molloy at the time of the event in question. She made a fraudulent claim to her insurance company for alleged personal injuries sustained in the staged collision involving Miss Molloy s vehicle. In due course, Miss Crook appeared before Carlisle Crown Court in connection with this matter, and upon her own confession she was convicted on 17 June 2016 for dishonestly making false representation to make gain for self/another to cause loss to other/expose other to risk. On 18 November 2016 Miss Crook was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years. She was required to carry out unpaid work for 75 hours before 17 November 2017 and to pay compensation of 1000 and to pay victim surcharge of 80. The Committee is aware that Miss Crook s suspended sentence continues until 17 November 2018. The Committee has considered the serious nature of Miss Crook s conviction which relates to dishonest conduct that appears to have been premeditated, involving others and potentially exposing them to risk. She obtained money from an insurance company based on false representations. In the Committee s view, her criminal behaviour amounted to a serious breach of one of the fundamental requirements of the profession, namely that a dental professional must act honestly. The Committee has had regard to the following standards of GDC s guidance Standards for Dental Professionals (2013) which states: 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity 1.3.2 You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute. 9.1 Ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies patients trust in you and the public s trust in the dental profession. Miss Crook breached this guidance. She provided no explanation of the events in questions to the GDC, despite being given the opportunity to present any evidence to this Committee. Further, there is no evidence of any remorse, insight or steps taken by Miss Crook since the events in question. In the absence of such evidence, the Committee cannot be satisfied that she has understood the seriousness of her offending behaviour and the consequences of it on the reputation of the profession. In the light of the serious nature of the conviction, and having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, the Committee has determined that Miss Crook s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction. CROOK, S Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -3/5-
The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on her registration. It recognises that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have that effect, but to protect patients and the wider public interest. It has taken into account the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees, including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (October 2016). The Committee has applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Miss Crook s own interests. The Committee has had regard to the mitigating and aggravating features of this case. It has borne in mind that Miss Crook has no previous fitness to practise history and that she entered a guilty plea at Carlisle Crown Court in June 2016. The aggravating features of this case include the serious nature of the conviction, which involved dishonest conduct, for which she was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment (suspended for 2 years). The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least serious. In view of the gravity of Miss Crook s conviction, the Committee has determined that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case without taking any action in respect of her registration or with a reprimand. Likewise, in the Committee s judgement, conditions would not be appropriate, given the dishonesty in this case. Furthermore, the Committee considers that conditions would be wholly insufficient for the maintenance of public confidence in the dental profession and upholding the reputation of the dental profession given the serious nature of Miss Crook s conviction. The Committee went on to consider whether to suspend Miss Crook s registration. In so doing, it had regard to the gravity of the conviction. There is no evidence before the Committee of any remorse or insight from Miss Crook as to her criminal conduct. It also notes that Miss Crook remains subject to her suspended sentence until 17 November 2018. Taking all these factors into account, the Committee has concluded that suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient for maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards. Dishonest conduct is unacceptable and is highly damaging to a registrant s fitness to practise and to public confidence in dental professionals. The Committee is satisfied that Miss Crook s conviction is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the Register. Accordingly, the Committee has determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is that of erasure. The Committee has taken into account the impact of such a direction on Miss Crook s own interests. However, in the light of the serious nature of the conviction, the Committee considers that the public interest clearly outweighs Miss Crook s own interests in this matter. It therefore directs that Miss Crook s name be erased from the Dental Care Professionals Register. The Committee now invites submissions as to whether Miss Crook s registration should be suspended immediately, pending the taking effect of its substantive direction of erasure. The interim order of suspension on Miss Crook s registration is hereby revoked with immediate effect. Having directed that Miss Crook s name be erased from the Dental Care Professionals Register, the Committee has considered whether to make an order for immediate suspension of her registration. Ms Headley, on behalf of the GDC, has submitted that such an order is necessary in the public interest, given the serious nature of the Committee s CROOK, S Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -4/5-
findings. She also advised that the substantive direction of erasure will not take effect until after the appeal period has concluded, which is 28 days from the date when the notice of this decision is deemed to have been served on Miss Crook, or if an appeal is lodged, until after the disposal of the appeal. The Committee has made serious findings against Miss Crook and is satisfied, for the reasons rehearsed in its previous determination, that it would be inconsistent to allow her the opportunity to continue to practise during the intervening appeal period and the taking effect of the substantive direction of erasure. In accordance with Section 36U of the Dentists Act 1984 (as amended) the Committee has determined that it is necessary in the public interest that Miss Crook s registration be suspended forthwith and therefore makes that direction accordingly. The effect of the foregoing direction and this order is that Miss Crook s registration will be suspended forthwith. Unless Miss Crook exercises her right of appeal, the substantive direction of erasure will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served on her. Should Miss Crook exercise her right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal proceedings. That concludes the case for today. CROOK, S Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -5/5-