Court of Appeal clarifies suspension rules for dental practitioners
By
The Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of suspension periods under the Dentists Act 1984
Background and Initial Proceedings
The Court of Appeal recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of General Dental Council vs Nabeel Aga, concerning the interpretation of suspension periods under the Dentists Act 1984. The case arose from a decision by the General Dental Council's Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) to suspend Nabeel Aga, a registered dentist, following findings of misconduct.
The Initial Decision
In July 2023, the PCC determined that Aga's conduct amounted to misconduct, leading to a finding that his fitness to practise was impaired. Consequently, the PCC directed a nine-month suspension under section 27B(6)(b) of the Dentists Act 1984 and an immediate suspension under section 30.
High Court Appeal
Aga appealed the PCC's decision, arguing that the nine-month suspension was excessive. The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Ritchie, quashed the PCC's direction and ruled that the suspension period should run concurrently with the immediate suspension, effectively reducing the total suspension time.
Court of Appeal's Analysis
The General Dental Council appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the High Court's interpretation. The Court of Appeal, led by Lady Justice Nicola Davies, examined whether the High Court's decision to treat the substantive and immediate suspensions as one continuous period was correct.
Statutory Interpretation
The Court of Appeal focused on the statutory language of sections 27B, 29A, and 30 of the Dentists Act 1984. It concluded that the High Court erred in treating the two suspensions as one. The Court found that the Dentists Act clearly delineates between a direction for suspension and an order for immediate suspension, each serving distinct purposes and governed by different statutory provisions.
Distinct Suspension Periods
The Court clarified that a direction for suspension under section 27B is distinct from an immediate suspension order under section 30. The former is a substantive sanction, while the latter is a protective measure pending appeal. The Court emphasised that the statutory maximum of 12 months applies only to the substantive suspension.
Implications for Professional Regulation
This judgment has significant implications for professional regulatory bodies. It underscores the importance of adhering to statutory language and ensures that immediate suspension orders do not inadvertently extend the duration of a substantive suspension beyond the statutory maximum.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal allowed the General Dental Council's appeal, reinstating the original nine-month suspension period without deduction for the immediate suspension. This decision reaffirms the distinct roles of substantive and immediate suspensions in regulatory proceedings.
Learn More
To understand more about professional conduct and regulatory proceedings, explore BeCivil's guide on UK Employment Law.