Hossack v General Dental Council [2010] EWHC 2120 (Admin)
The appellant appealed against a decision of
the Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC in respect of it's
refusal to restore him to the register. The application, made in
2008, was the second application, the earlier one having been made
and refused in 2007.
In support of his application for
registration, the appellant had submitted a bundle of documents of
approximately 500 pages, including records of training which he had
undertaken and in respect of which the appellant had indicated that
he received A grades.
The GDC had obtained witness statements,
including a statement from the appellant's tutor which confirmed
that the appellant had awarded himself the grades, save for in
relation to one of the grades awarded in respect of which the GDC
had a statement from a Dr Franks confirming that he was of the
opinion that the appellant's work attracted that grade. The GDC's
case was that the appellant had deliberately attempted to mislead
the Committee in submitting such training records, taking into
account that the appellant had self-graded, and that the appellant
had only made admissions at such point at which he had been caught
out. During the course of the GDC's opening before the Committee,
and during subsequent cross examination, the appellant accepted
that he had self-graded.
In refusing the application for restoration,
the Committee commented on the dishonesty which had been a feature
of the appellant's application.
Attached to the appellant's notice of appeal,
were copies of letters which the appellant was alleged to have sent
to the GDC prior to the restoration hearing, in which he explained
that he had self-graded. Such letters were not included in the
bundle of evidence which the appellant had submitted prior to the
restoration hearing, nor had any reference been made to the letters
during the course of the hearing itself, including during cross
examination. In considering the appeal, the Court questioned
whether the letters were genuine commenting of the fact that if
they were genuine, one would reasonably have expected the appellant
to mention them during the course of the restoration hearing
particularly during cross-examination.
In dismissing the appeal the Court found that
the Committee was entitled to reach the decision it had reached,
based on the evidence it had before it. The Court went so far as to
state that in considering the evidence and the conduct of the
appellant, it was difficult to see how the Committee could have
reached any other conclusion.
