Bamgbelu v General Dental Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Haddon-Cave |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 4123 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/67/2015 |
| Date | 23 June 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 4123 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave
CO/67/2015
The Claimant appeared in Person
Mr S Singh (instructed by General Dental Council) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is a statutory appeal, brought by the appellant, Mr Abiodun Bamgbelu, who appears in person today, seeking to challenge the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Dental Council (GDC), dated 17th December 2014. By its decision the PCC ordered the erasure and immediate suspension of the appellant from the National Dentist Register.
Mr Singh, who appears today for the GDC, has pointed out that whilst the appeal against the order for erasure has been correctly brought by Part 52 appeal pursuant to section 29 of the Dentist Act 1984, the order for immediate suspension is not an appealable decision for the purposes of section 29 of the Act. Mr Singh points out that that challenge should have been brought by a way of a Part 8 application pursuant to section 30(7) of the Act (see Ashton v GMC [2013] EWHC 943 (Admin) in particular at paragraph 2, for the parallel situation under the Medical Act 1983).
On behalf of his client (the GDC) however Mr Singh takes no procedural point and does not object to the appellant now issuing proceedings pursuant to section 30(7). I shall therefore treat this as an appeal.
The charges brought against the appellant which led to his erasure and immediate suspension by the PCC on the 17th December 2013 included, first, numerous intentionally abusive, threatening and offensive communications which were alleged to have been sent by the appellant to three of the GDC's employees and a professional colleague between September 2013 and March 2014 (charges 1 to 7). These charges were found proved by the PCC. Second, it was alleged that the appellant had failed to co-operate with the respondent's investigations into his fitness to practice by not undergoing health assessment, despite requests made to him between October 2013 and June 2014 (charge 11). Charge 11 was found proved. A charge of the appellant acting dishonestly in connection with the document he submitted to the GDC Interim Orders Committee in April 2014 was found not proved. Charges 8 and 9 were irrelevant.
The appellant did not attend the PCC hearing. He was notified in advance of the hearing of 14th October 2014 but did not attend. The proceedings were then adjourned on 18th October 2014. They were resumed on 15th December 2014. Again, the appellant was notified in advance of those hearings but chose not to attend.
The PCC returned its findings on 17th December 2014 and found that the appellant's actions amounted to misconduct and that his Fitness to Practise was impaired and ordered the erasure of his name from the Dentists' Register, as I have said. The PCC also determined that an order suspending the appellant's registration was also necessary in order to protect the public interest.
Mr Bamgbelu in his lengthy written submissions, which have been amplified today orally, challenges the PCC decision on a number of grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Incompetent administration of parts of English law.
His right to free speech.
He was charged and found guilty of a dishonestly constructed charge.
He had a right to a fair hearing to life and to live in peace.
He was persecuted unlawfully by the GDC.
There were dishonest and forged documents in the papers.
There was intellectual laziness by the barristers.
Part of the GDC staff, not fully acquired the consistent capacity to read, comprehend and employ the English language.
It was in the public interest openly to express the fact that some of the members of the GDC were mediocre and dishonest.
Witnesses deviated from the truth under oath.
In his oral submission today, which Mr Bamgbelu has put politely and courteously to the court, he has also submitted that the reason why he sent (what he admits were inappropriate messages to members of the General Dental Council between October 2013 and June 2014 — messages which he now regrets) was because, first, a mistake had been made by the General Dental Council in 2009 in publishing that his Fitness to Practise was impaired and secondly, there were a large number of charges which had been laid before him in 2009 and onwards which were inaccurate. Those inaccuracies and what he called "confusions" persisted through to 2013. He then says he was faced with an abnormal situation to which he admits he did not react appropriately. It was an aberrant episode which he now regrets. As he put it: "Retrospectively I wish I had been able to communicate my frustration in a more articulate way without edge".
For the respondent, the GDC, Mr Singh submits in his helpful and succinct submissions that essentially no cogent reasons in support of this appeal have been articulated today or in any of the appellant's written documents.
History
This matter has had a lengthy history. The appellant first appeared before the PCC in 2008 and until 2011 when he was charged with misconduct. The allegations of misconduct were numerous. They are summarised in the findings of fact and determination of PPC dated September 2009 to August 2011. They included numerous charges of threatening, abusive and aggressive language and behaviour towards patients, in May 2007 and onwards, behaviour that was unprofessional and inappropriate, allegations that the facilities at his Bedford surgery were unhygienic and inadequate and allegations that he conducted his practice in an unprofessional inadequate and inappropriate way and in a manner which was a risk to patients and staff.
The appellant's fitness to practise was found impaired and conditions were initially imposed for 12 months on 15th September 2009. The matter was then reviewed on 1st September and the conditions were continued in a revised form for a further 12 months. A second review was held on 17th August 2011 when the conditions were again revised and were continued for a further 9 months.
The appellant at no stage appealed the findings of fact that had been made by the PCC to which I have referred. He did, however, seek to appeal the GDC's decision to impose and continue the imposition of conditions. That appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Allan Gore QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court on 16th April 2013 — see [2013] EWHC 1196 (Admin). In the course of his judgment His Honour Judge Gore helpfully rehearsed the findings that had been made against the appellant. Those fell into three categories, First, inadequate clinical treatment of patient not in the patient's interests, due to alleged unprofessional, inappropriate and aggressive behaviour and concerns about infection control. Second, unsafe and unhygienic practice conditions at surgery. Third, dishonest and misleading unprofessional conduct on a single occasion concerning relevant paperwork. He considered the appellant's appeal. It was dismissed by the learned judge with costs.
Some of the allegations faced by the appellant and found proved in those latter proceedings are of a similar nature to those in the present case. In particular, I mention acting in aggressive and threatening and abrupt, dismissive, intimidating, insulting manner towards a patient and being dismissive and personally degrading and insulting to GDC staff.
The Law
The law in this arena is well known and understood. As explained in Wasu v General Dental Council [2013] EWHC 3782 (Admin), the approach to an appeal pursuant to section 29 of the Dentist Act can be summarised as follows:
i. "(1) An appeal pursuant to s.29 of the Dentists Act 1984 is by way of rehearing…
ii. (2) The Court has the power (a) to dismiss the appeal, (b) to allow the appeal and quash the decision appealed against, (c) to substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision which could have been made by the Professional Conduct Committee or (d) remit the case to the Professional Conduct Committee to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court…
2) An appeal pursuant to s.29 of the Dentists Act 1984 is by way of rehearing ( CPR Part 52, PD 22.3).(2) The Court has the power (a) to dismiss the appeal, (b) to allow the appeal and quash the decision appealed against, (c) to substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision which could have been made by the Professional Conduct Committee or (d) remit the case to the Professional Conduct Committee to dispose of the case in accordance with the directions of the court (Dentist Act 1984, s.29.
i. (3) The court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower Tribunal was wrong our unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity inned proceedings before the lower court."
It went on to state:
i. "17. The general principles applicable to an appeal against a decision of professional Disciplinary Committee of this sort can be summarised as follows:
(1) The Court will give appropriate weight to the fact that the Panel is a specialist tribunal, whose understanding of what the medical profession expects of its members in matters of medical practice deserves respect;
(2) The Court will have regard to the fact that the tribunal has had the advantage of hearing the evidence from live witnesses;
(3) The Court should accordingly be slow to interfere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohammed Adil v General Medical Council
...with article 10 rights in the interests of proper regulation of professions: see for example Bamgbelu v General Dental Council [2015] EWHC 4123 (Admin) at [49]–[51]; R (Pitt) v General Pharmaceutical Council [2017] 156 BMLR 222 at [69]; Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin) ......