The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Privy Council Appeal No. 41 of 1996

 

Allotey Brown Appellant

v.

The General Dental Council Respondent

 

FROM

 

THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

OF THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL

 

---------------

REASONS FOR REPORT OF THE LORDS OF THE

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

OF THE 6th November 1996, Delivered the

18th November 1996

------------------

 

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Lord Steyn

  ·[Delivered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

 

-------------------------

 

1. This is an appeal by Mr. Allotey Brown against a direction of the General Dental Council on 16th May 1996 that his name be erased from the Dentists Register.  At the conclusion of the hearing on 6th November their Lordships agreed humbly to advise Her Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed for reasons to be given later.  Their Lordships' reasons now follow.

 

2. The appellant first came before the Professional Conduct Committee in May 1995. On that occasion he faced a charge that he had failed to employ a proper degree of skill and attention in providing dental treatment in relation to eight patients between January and December 1991, and that he had carried out dental treatment in excess of what was required.

 

3. The facts alleged were found proved in relation to five of the eight patients.  The Committee found that his conduct had fallen short of the standard to be expected of a member of the profession, and  in  particular  that there were major shortcomings in his clinical skills and interpretation of radiographs.  On that basis they found the appellant guilty of serious professional misconduct.

 

4. However, the Committee decided to postpone determination of the case until its meeting in May 1996, in order to give the appellant an opportunity to undergo post-graduate education, and to update his skills under the direction of Professor B.G.N. Smith, of the Department of Conservative Dentistry at Guy's Hospital.

 

5. When the hearing was resumed in May 1996, there was before the Committee a letter from Professor Smith dated 1st May 1996, enclosing reports from Mr. Eric Whaites and Mr. K.J. Jones.  Mr. Whaites, in his report dated 15th January 1996, gave the appellant credit for having attended two post-graduate courses.  But in a written test of his radiographic interpretative skills, he scored less than 50%.  According to Mr. Whaites, the appellant showed a "worryingly poor interpretative ability".  His performance fell somewhat short of the standard which Mr. Whaites would expect from a final year student.

 

6. Mr. Jones had a two hour seminar with the appellant.  In his letter dated 16th February 1996 Mr. Jones says that the seminar caused him some concern.  "At times we were in agreement but this seemed to occur in situations where there was minimal pathology or very minor defects of restorations.  He seemed to be more prepared to diagnose caries than I felt was reasonable".  A little later Mr. Jones said:-

"At the end of the seminar I had formed the impression that Mr. Brown was quite set in his ways of treating certain problems and was not readily amenable to change.  I found some of his treatment decisions were at odds with what I would consider to be within a normal range for general dental practitioners.  I did not feel that I had influenced Mr. Brown's thinking in any way."

 

7. In a letter dated 1st May 1996 enclosing the two reports, Professor B.G.N. Smith commented:-

"All three of us are agreed that we would not be prepared to come and give evidence on behalf of Mr. Brown ..."

 

8. This was not all.  For at the resumed hearing in May 1996 the appellant faced two further charges in respect of his treatment of Mr. and Mrs. Nicklin.  In relation to Mr. Nicklin the most serious allegation was that the appellant told him, wrongly, that the treatment which he carried out was not available on the National Health Service.  Accordingly Mr. Nicklin was treated as a private patient,  and  was charged ,352.  In relation to Mrs. Nicklin the

most serious allegation was that the form which the appellant submitted to the Dental Practice Board showed that Mrs. Nicklin had contributed ,6.68 towards the National Health Service charge, whereas she had in fact contributed ,12.92.  It is important to notice, however, that Miss Cutts, on behalf of the Council, did not suggest any dishonesty on the part of the appellant in that respect.

 

9. At the hearing on 16th May 1996 the Professional Conduct Committee found the facts proved in relation to the two new charges, and determined that the appellant was thereby guilty of serious professional misconduct.  The Committee then considered the old and the new charges together, in accordance with advice received from their Legal Assessor. They decided that the appellant's name should be erased from the Dentists Register.

 

10. The only question for their Lordships is whether they should interfere with that sentence.  It has been well-settled for many years that their Lordships will not interfere with a sentence imposed by a professional body unless satisfied that it is wrong and unjustified.  Their Lordships are not so satisfied in the present case.  In the light of the reports included with Professor B.G.N. Smith's letter, and despite a more favourable report from Professor N.J.D. Smith, of King's College, London, the Committee was entitled to take the view that the appellant had not taken proper advantage of the opportunity which he had been offered to improve his skills. Added to that there were the new charges which the Committee found proved.  In those circumstances their Lordships are satisfied that a sentence of erasure was fully justified and that there are no grounds on which they could interfere.

 

11. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

 

© CROWN COPYRIGHT as at the date of judgment.