Arfan Zia Dad v The General Dental Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] UKPC J0323-5 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 29 of 1999 |
| Date | 13 April 2000 |
[2000] UKPC J0323-5
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hope of Craighead
Sir Patrick Russell
Sir Andrew Leggatt
[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]
This is an appeal against a determination of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council on 14th May 1999 directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration in the Dentists' Register for a period of 12 months in consequence of the proof against him of two convictions for offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal their Lordships announced that, for reasons to be given later, they had decided humbly to advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, that the determination of the Professional Conduct Committee should be set aside and that the judgment of the Committee should stand postponed under rule 11(4) of the General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules Order of Council 1984 until 14th May 2001. The following are the reasons which their Lordships now give for their report.
The charge which was set out in the Notice of Inquiry, as amended at the outset of the hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee, stated that the appellant had been convicted of the following offences: (1) that he was on 29th May 1997 at Glasgow Sheriff Court convicted, after pleading guilty, on one charge of driving whilst disqualified and was fined £500 and disqualified from driving for one year and (2) that he was on 1st July 1997 at Lanark Sheriff Court convicted, after pleading guilty, on one charge of reckless driving and one charge of failing to produce insurance documents and was fined a total of £850 and disqualified from driving for 18 months. The Committee were informed that the offences which were the subject of the second head had been committed on 19th October 1996, and that the offence which was the subject of the first head had been committed on 7th May 1997. They were also informed that the appellant had had four previous convictions for speeding offences committed between 27th September 1995 and 7th October 1996. These had culminated in his being disqualified from driving under the "totting-up" provisions on 2nd December 1996. It was his disqualification in respect of these offences which was the subject of the conviction referred to in the first head of the Notice of Inquiry. At the time when he committed the offences which were the subject of the conviction referred to in the second head he had not yet been disqualified from driving and he was not yet without insurance.
In a letter dated 16th March 1999 written on his behalf by his solicitor, Dr. P. Abernethy, the appellant admitted the convictions referred to in the Notice of Inquiry and disclosed a further conviction in March 1998 in Lancaster Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty, on a charge of driving whilst disqualified and a charge of driving without insurance. On this occasion he was fined £2,500 and disqualified from driving for twelve months.
The case for the Council was that the appellant had been guilty of behaviour which was liable to bring the profession into disrepute or to undermine public confidence in the profession. On the appellant's behalf Dr. Abernethy invited the Committee to display leniency or to postpone judgment for 12 months under rule 11(4) of the Procedure Rules. She described him as a young, enthusiastic and caring dentist who had bought three practices in Glasgow, where there was a high ethnic need for which he felt he could provide. She said that he had acquired significant financial responsibilities including mortgage payments for a property which he had bought for his parents who lived in Birmingham. His father had suffered two strokes in 1992 and was still in need of a lot of physical care. He felt obliged to go to Birmingham almost every weekend to assist his family in looking after him. This had put a strain on his marriage as his wife did not want to spend her weekends in Birmingham. He had felt under a great deal of pressure during the period when he committed the offences while driving between Glasgow and Birmingham.
The appellant then gave evidence to the Committee. He admitted that his driving record was disgraceful, and for this he expressed regret and apologised. He now realised that he had been irresponsible in the amount of commuting which he had been doing between Glasgow and Birmingham. He said that he had neglected his driving because of his other problems and that he had now learned his lesson. He asked to be given a chance to prove that this was so. It is plain from the Committee's determination that they were not persuaded that he should be given that opportunity.
In his submissions to the Board in support of the appeal Mr. McCullough accepted that the appellant's driving record had been deplorable, but he submitted that the penalty which the Committee had decided to impose was very harsh, wrong and unjustifiable. He also submitted that the Committee had erred as a matter of procedure because they had failed to consider and determine the question whether to postpone judgment which they were required to consider by rule 11(3) of the Procedure Rules, that their determination was open to challenge on the ground of their failure to give reasons and that there were grounds for thinking,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zahra Ali-Asghar Hussain v General Pharmaceutical Council
...which does not relate to professional performance than in a case in which the misconduct relates to it: Dad v General Dental Council [2000] 1 WLR 1538, 1542–1543.” 35 Turning to procedural failings, it can be seen from the terms of CPR 52.21(3) (quoted in paragraph 30 above) that a procedur......
-
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The General Medical Council
...which does not relate to professional performance than in a case in which the misconduct relates to it: Dad v General Dental Council [2000] 1 WLR 1538, pp 1542–1543.” b. Consequence of finding of misconduct 80 It is not every case where a finding of misconduct will result in a finding of im......
-
Dr Ashish Dutta v General Medical Council
...in the public interest, to maintain the standards and reputation of their professions (see e.g. the Dad v General Dental Council [2000] 1 WLR 1538, 1542C, Raschid v General Medical Council [2007] 1 WLR 1460; [2007] EWCA Civ 46, [16–20]; Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691, pa......
-
Harrold v Nursing and Midwifery Council
...on the relevant test in this jurisdiction. These were Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] 1 WLR 1915, Dad v General Dental Council [2000] 1 WLR 1538 and Salsbury v Law Society [2009] 1 WLR 1286. There are slight differences in expression and emphasis in the earlier cases. I propose to fo......
-
‘Australian Exceptionalism’ in Judicial Review
...68; Stefan v General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293, 1301; R (Wooder) v Feggetter [2003] QB 219; cf Dad v General Dental Council [2000] 1 WLR 1538, 1541–2. 90 See, eg, English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002] 3 All ER 385; Mousaka Inc v Golden Seagull Maritime Inc [2002] 1 WLR 395;......