Shiekh, R (on the application of) v General Dental Council

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application brought by the Plaintiff, a dental surgeon, challenging an interim suspension order imposed by a Panel of the General Dental Council ("the Council"). The interim suspension, initially ordered on 21st November 2006 for a period of 18 months, was reviewed and continued on 17th May 2007. The suspension was imposed pending a substantive hearing of complaint proceedings against the Plaintiff, which was scheduled to take place shortly after the hearing of this application in November 2007.

The Plaintiff had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud following a lengthy criminal trial related to false travel expense claims made by associates working at his dental practice. The conviction led to criminal sentencing, including a suspended prison sentence, and subsequently to disciplinary proceedings by the Council. The Plaintiff sought to challenge the interim suspension on the basis that it was not justified.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the interim suspension order imposed by the General Dental Council was necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or in the interests of the Plaintiff under section 32 of the Dentists Act 1984 as amended.
2. The proper approach of the court in exercising its original jurisdiction under section 32(12) to review and potentially terminate or vary an interim suspension order.
3. The extent to which the public interest test requires necessity or a high threshold before interim suspension may be imposed absent direct risk to public safety or detriment to the practitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The interim suspension was not justified and should be terminated as it was not necessary on public interest grounds.
• The Plaintiff posed no direct risk to public safety and there had been no complaints about his dental practice for many years.
• Full financial reparation had been made by the Plaintiff, and he had continued to be entrusted with significant professional responsibilities after conviction.
• The conviction related to conduct over eight years prior, with mitigating circumstances and no suggestion of ongoing wrongdoing.
• Interim suspension unfairly deprives the Plaintiff of the opportunity to demonstrate good conduct before the substantive hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

• The interim suspension was appropriate to protect public confidence and the reputation of the profession.
• The specialist Panel was well placed to assess public perception and had properly exercised its discretion in imposing suspension.
• The Plaintiff would not be deprived of his livelihood by the interim suspension order.
• The delay in proceedings was attributable to the complexity and overlap of civil and criminal processes.
• While not insisting suspension was the only proper order, the Council maintained that suspension was a proper and proportionate response.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering the statutory framework under section 32 of the Dentists Act 1984, which permits interim suspension or conditional registration where necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or in the interests of the practitioner. It was accepted that only the public interest limb was relevant in this case, as no risk to public safety or practitioner interest justification existed.

The court noted that the power to review interim suspension orders is conferred on both the Committee and the court, but the court lacks power to quash an order, only to terminate or vary it. The court’s jurisdiction under section 32(12) is original and more open-ended than a judicial review, though respect is due to the specialist Panel’s expertise.

Given the absence of any direct risk to public safety or challenge to the Plaintiff’s competence, and the mitigating factors such as full financial reparation, no complaints since the relevant period, and ongoing professional trust placed in the Plaintiff, the court scrutinised the justification for interim suspension on public interest grounds.

The court found the rationale for interim suspension—primarily to protect public confidence and the profession’s reputation—was insufficiently supported by the Panels’ reasons. The court questioned why such concerns could not be addressed at the substantive hearing when all evidence and mitigation would be fully considered.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the conviction but concluded that proportionality demands a high threshold for interim suspension on public interest grounds alone, given the significant impact on the practitioner’s livelihood and reputation.

Exercising its own judgment, the court determined that the interim suspension was not necessary in this case and should be terminated, leaving the question of any final suspension to the substantive hearing.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the application to terminate the interim suspension order imposed on the Plaintiff's registration by the General Dental Council.

This decision directly restores the Plaintiff’s registration without interim suspension pending the substantive hearing. The court emphasized that this ruling does not preclude the Panel from imposing suspension at the final hearing if justified by the full evidence and arguments then presented. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the high threshold and necessity requirement for interim suspension on public interest grounds absent risk to public safety or practitioner interests.