Guidance on the Investigating Committee s power to review a warning 1
A. Introduction 1. On 13 April 2016, the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise etc.) Order 2016 amended the Dentists Act 1984 ( the Act ) to give the Investigating Committee the power to a review a determination made by them to issue a warning. 2. The new power of review contained in the Act (as amended) 1 enables the Investigating Committee to review a warning where an application is made by the person to whom the warning was issued ( the registrant ), or by the Registrar. That application must be made within two years of the date on which the original determination was made. 3. If, upon review, the Investigating Committee considers it appropriate to do so, they may revoke the warning and direct the Registrar to remove details of the warning from the entry in the register relating to the person to whom the warning was issued. B. The review process 4. In order for an application to review a warning to be valid under the terms of the Act, it must: (i) (ii) be made either by the registrant or the Registrar (i.e. the GDC itself); be made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the original determination was made; and 5. The Act does not require an application for review of a warning to be made in any specific format. However, an application should be made in writing to the Investigating Committee (c/o the caseworker who previously handled the matter) and should set out the basis on which review is requested. 6. When an application for a review of a warning is received from the registrant to whom the warning was issued, it will, provided that it meets the requirements set out in paragraph [4] above, be listed for consideration at a forthcoming meeting of the Investigating Committee. 7. Under the Act, an application to review a warning may also be made by the Registrar. In those circumstances, the registrant who is the subject of the warning should be informed of the application and should be invited to comment, prior to the matter being considered by the Investigating Committee. 8. The GDC will, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, endeavour to ensure the review is conducted by different personnel to those who made the original decision; however this may not always be necessary depending on the particular circumstances of the case, or possible for operational reasons. 1 the new power is contained in section 27A(11) and section 27A(12) 2
C. Factors to be considered by the Investigating Committee: initial consideration 9. The Investigating Committee will consider the application (including any supporting documents provided by the applicant, together with any comments made by the registrant, if the application is being made by the Registrar), the original determination, and the bundle of documents available to the original Investigating Committee. 10. At this initial consideration stage, the Investigating Committee is not considering whether or not the original decision to issue a warning should be revoked, but the preliminary question of whether to conduct a full review. The Investigating Committee should bear in mind that, at this early stage, they will be considering relatively limited information, in that comments have not yet been sought from any potentially interested parties, and nor has the Registrar had the opportunity to conduct any further relevant enquiries. 11. As such, the threshold for considering whether to conduct a review is relatively low, and the Investigating Committee should, at the initial stage, examine whether the application has some merit in that: there is evidence that there may have been a material flaw in the original decision to issue a warning, and/or there is new information, either immediately available or potentially available to the GDC upon enquiry, which now indicates that it may not have been appropriate to issue a warning. 12. If so, the Investigating Committee may consider that it is appropriate to conduct a review of its original decision. Material flaw 13. The reviewing Investigating Committee should not conclude that the original decision was materially flawed simply because it would have made a different decision. 14. The reviewing Investigating Committee should also bear in mind that not every identifiable defect in the process followed to date, or in its the previous decision, will necessarily amount to a material flaw in the original decision. 15. Ultimately, in order for the Investigating Committee s original decision to be considered to be materially flawed, the flaw or flaws identified must be capable of having made a difference to the ultimate outcome i.e. the issuing of the warning. In other words, the reviewing Investigating Committee should consider whether the flaw or flaws identified may have had an impact on the original Investigating Committee and may have influenced its judgment. 16. Some examples of what may amount to a material flaw are set out at paragraph [17] below. New information 17. The Act does not define what amounts to new information. However, in order for information to be considered new information, it must not have been in the possession of the GDC at the time the original decision was made. If the information was in the hands of the GDC at that time, but was not provided to the Investigating Committee, the failure to provide the information to the Investigating Committee may instead be considered under the material flaw ground referred to above. 18. New information may be information of a factual nature, or further expert evidence. The new information should, however, be relevant to the specific allegation of impairment which formed the basis of the Investigating Committee s original decision. 3
Overlap with judicial review 19. Decisions of the Investigating Committee, including a decision to issue a warning (published or unpublished) may be subject to challenge by way of judicial review. However, judicial review is a remedy of last resort and the claimant must generally demonstrate that they have exhausted all alternative remedies. 20. As such, it is likely that in the Investigating Committee s power to review a warning will be used as an alternative to judicial review. In practice, many of the grounds for judicial review can also be said to be grounds for considering that the decision was materially flawed, for example that: the original Investigating Committee misinterpreted the law governing the decision; the original Investigating Committee took into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to take into account relevant considerations; the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have come to it i.e. it was outside a reasonable range of decisions; the GDC did not comply with its own Rules during the decision making process (for example, in failing to allow the registrant adequate opportunity to comment upon the allegation as required by Rule 7(2) of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2006); there was failure to provide all relevant evidence to the Investigating Committee, for example observations provided by the registrant (or informant) or records; inaccurate information was provided to the Investigating Committee, for example in relation to the registrant s fitness to practise history; there are allegations of actual bias, or the appearance of bias; there was failure to give adequate reasons; and/or the case proceeded on an erroneous basis, for example upon the assumption that the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence (or has an adverse finding from another Regulator) when this is not in fact the case 2. D. Review process 21. Having given the request for review initial consideration, the Investigating Committee must prepare a written determination, setting out the reasons for its decision to review or not to review the original decision, and must notify the Registrar (i.e. the GDC s casework team) accordingly. 22. The GDC s casework team will then inform the applicant (and registrant, if the application is made by the Registrar) of the Investigating Committee s decision and the reasons for it. If the Investigating Committee decides not to review its original decision, the applicant (and registrant, if the application is made by the Registrar) will be informed of the outcome and no further action will be taken. 2 this potential ground for review overlaps with the principle established in Fajemisin v General Dental Council [2013] EWHC 3501 (Admin) i.e. that in addition to correcting slips, a regulatory body can revisit a decision that was made in ignorance of the true facts when the factual basis on which it proceeded amounted to a fundamental mistake of fact 4
23. If, on the other hand, the Investigating Committee decides to review its original decision, the Registrar will notify: (i) (ii) (iii) the registrant, the maker of the allegation (if any); and any other person who in the opinion of the Investigating Committee has an interest in the decision to issue a warning, of the decision to review and the reasons for that decision. 24. The Registrar will, at the same time as notifying the above individuals of the Investigating Committee s decision to conduct a review, provide any new information which is available, and will seek representations from them regarding the review of the decision. 25. The Registrar may also carry out any investigations which the Registrar considers are appropriate to facilitate the making of the Investigating Committee s ultimate decision. This may include obtaining further factual or expert evidence, or obtaining legal advice on any of the issues raised. 26. After any appropriate investigations have been carried out, the matter will be relisted for consideration by the Investigating Committee. E. Review decision 27. The decision as to whether the original decision was materially flawed, or that there is new information which now indicates that it was not appropriate to issue a warning, is ultimately a question of judgment for the reviewing Investigating Committee, taking into account all the relevant information, including representations provided by those entitled to comment, and material obtained during the course of any further investigations conducted by the Registrar. 28. Where the reviewing Investigating Committee, taking account of all relevant material, concludes that the original decision was materially flawed for any reason, or that there is new information which now indicates that it was not appropriate to issue a warning, the reviewing Investigating Committee must: (i) (ii) revoke the decision to issue a warning; and if the warning has been published, direct the Registrar to remove details of the warning from the entry in the register relating to the registrant. 29. Where, on the other hand, the reviewing Investigating Committee concludes that the original decision was not materially flawed, or that there is no new information which now indicates that it was not appropriate to issue a warning, it must decide that the original decision to issue a warning should stand. 30. The reviewing Investigating Committee s power of review under the Act is limited to revoking the warning, or determining that it should stand; the reviewing Investigating Committee does not have the power to amend the warning issued, or to substitute it with advice. 31. A situation may therefore arise where a warning based on two elements has been issued, but after the review process, one of those elements may have fallen away. Such a situation is more likely to arise where there is new information in relation to one element of the original case. 5
32. In those circumstances, the reviewing Investigating Committee should consider carefully whether or not the warning should be rescinded. The test under the Rules, and therefore the key question for the reviewing Investigating Committee, is whether the new information now indicates that it was not appropriate to issue the warning. 33. In considering the question of appropriateness, the reviewing Investigating Committee will wish to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, using as a starting point the reasons given by the original Investigating Committee for imposing a warning. 34. Having considered all the facts and circumstances, the reviewing Investigating Committee may, in particular, wish to examine whether the element that remains, post review, would be insufficient to amount to misconduct (bearing in mind that misconduct denotes serious acts or omissions, suggesting a significant departure from what would be proper in the circumstances), or is otherwise insufficiently serious for a warning to have been imposed. 35. The reviewing Investigating Committee should also bear in mind that there is an issue of fairness in leaving a warning in place which contains reference to matters which have now fallen away. In considering fairness, the reviewing Investigating Committee should take into account any submissions made by the registrant, and also that, as a matter of general principle, there is a degree of censure implicit in a warning, which can have a significant professional impact upon a registrant, and which is unlikely to be justified where an element of the warning can no longer be supported. 36. Overall, if the reviewing Investigating Committee considers that the new information now indicates that it was not appropriate to issue a warning, the warning must, under the terms of the Rules, be revoked in its entirety. F. Outcome 37. Where the reviewing Investigating Committee have reviewed a decision, they must notify in writing and as soon as reasonably practicable, the registrant, the maker of the allegation (if any) and any other person who in the opinion of the reviewing Investigating Committee has an interest in receiving the notification. The notification should include the decision made and the reasons for it. December 2016 6