Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Alexander Fleischmann
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 03 February 2005 |
Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) |
Date | 03 February 2005 |
Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Newman
Medical law - General Dental Council - serious criminal conviction - good standing in profession has to be earned
As a general principle, where a dental practitioner had been convicted of a serious criminal offence he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he had satisfactorily completed his sentence.
The rationale for that was to protect the reputation of the profession.
Mr Justice Newman so held in the Queen's Bench Division in a reference under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 brought by the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals against the decision of the General Dental Council to suspend Alexander Emmanuel Mark Fleischmann, a dentist practising in Hayes, for 12 months. The suspension was altered to removal from the register.
Mr Robert Jay, QC and Ms Kristina Stern for the council; Mr Neil Garnham, QC, for the GDC; Mr David Fisher, QC, for Mr Fleischmann.
MR JUSTICE NEWMAN said that the dentist was arrested for inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children.
Following a guilty plea at an early stage to 12 specimen charges, he was sentenced to a community rehabilitation order for three years concurrent and ordered to remain on the sex offenders register for five years and prohibited from the unsupervised access to children aged under 16. He was also ordered to participate in a sex offenders' treatment programme.
However, the judge made it clear that the case was one which would ordinarily justify a custodial sentence of anything between 12 months and three years. It was only because there were particular mitigating circumstances that a custodial sentence was not imposed.
At a hearing before the GDC he was suspended for 12 months. It was that period of suspension which the council sought to refer as unduly lenient.
His Lordship was satisfied that the GDC did not sufficiently consider the significance of the sentence imposed by the crown court. The dentist's duty of disclosure to his patients would require that patients were informed of the sentence and the conditions attached to it.
His Lordship was satisfied that, as a general principle, where a practitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v (1) General Dental Council (2) Iain Ralph Marshall
...of the 2002 Act in CHCRE v General Medical Council and Basiouny [2005] EWHC 68 (Admin) and in CRHCP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin). 16 The Council has power to refer a case to the Court on the ground that the PCC's decision was "unduly lenient" as regards to the facts found by......
-
Rumbold v General Medical Council
...doubt, I should say that nothing in the decisions in Taylor v The GMC [1990] 2AC 539 nor Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Dental Council and Alexander Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) could possibly lead to such a conclusion. In my judgment both factors ar......
-
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Another
...such as dishonesty or sexual misconduct; see for example the observations to this effect in The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin). The Statutory Scheme for Misconduct by Nurses and Midwives 64 This Scheme ......
-
Dr Benjamin Amrakpovughe Obukofe v The General Medical Council
...argument is that Dr Obukofe was denied an opportunity to comment on the decision of this court in Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council & Anor [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), to which I will refer as the Fleischmann case. It was referred to by the legal as......