AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)

This is an appeal by Dr Shala Imani from the decision of the General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) of 16 June 2023 suspending her registration as a dentist with the General Dental Council (“GDC”) for 12 months. The appeal is brought under section 29(3) of the Dentists Act 1984. Pursuant to CPR 52.21(3), the court will allow the appeal if the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings below.

The allegations faced by Dr Imani concerned the period 2012 – 2018. During that time she undertook private and National Health Service (“NHS”) dental work from her two dental practices in Peacehaven and in Hove. As part of her NHS contract for each practice, she had a yearly target to submit a certain amount of Units of Dental Activity (“UDAs”).

In summary, the PCC found that Dr Imani had caused or permitted claims to be made for UDAs relating to treatments that had not in fact been provided as claimed. This included claiming for treatments that had not taken place and submitting claims with incorrect premature dates of completion. In total, the PCC found that in 23 instances her conduct was inappropriate and misleading and that in nine of those instances, including all of the charges relating to claims with incorrect premature dates of completion, her conduct was dishonest, as she sought to obtain UDAs to which she was not entitled. In addition, the PCC found that in one instance she had acted dishonestly in failing to offer a patient treatment under the NHS, as opposed to exclusively under a private contract. The PCC also determined that Dr Imani failed to provide an adequate standard of care in relation to ten patients and that she failed to provide an adequate standard of record keeping in relation to 12 patients. In turn, the PCC found that the proven allegations amounted to misconduct and that her fitness to practice was impaired by virtue of the proven dishonesty.

The Appellant appeals the ten findings of dishonesty. Her Grounds of Appeal are that the PCC was wrong and erred in:

“1.

Admitting or failing to exclude, multiple hearsay evidence regarding Treatment Acceptance Dates and Treatment Completion Dates contained in Schedule C;

2.

Finding dishonesty proved in relation to the allegations 5(g), 6(f), 7(a) – (g) and 17(b);

3.

Determining a sanction of suspension for a period of 12 months.”

Mr Hodivala KC confirmed at the outset of the hearing that: (a) Ground 1 is only relied on in respect of the ten dishonesty findings, and that none of the other findings made by the PCC are challenged; and (b) Ground 3 only arises if the appeal succeeds in relation to Grounds 1 and/or 2; it does not raise any free-standing issue regarding the sanction imposed.

As I explain in para 38 below, Schedule C (the subject of Ground 1), was prepared by Dr Julian Scott, a former Chief Probity Officer of the Dental Practice Board for England and Wales and the GDC’s probity expert. The document set out in tabular form data relating to 45 claims made by the Appellant in respect of treatment concerning 20 patients (each of which was assigned a number). The columns of data indicated the Treatment Acceptance Date (“TAD”), the Treatment Completion Date (“TCD”), the date the claim was received, the Band of treatment claimed and the UDAs relating to it. The data in Schedule C was based on records provided by Mr Andy Lee, Senior Operations Lead for the NHS Business Services Authority (“BSA”), in particular in exhibit NHS4. The provenance of this data is described at paras 41 – 45 below. In short, Mr Hodivala submits that it was hearsay evidence that in fairness to Dr Imani should not have been admitted or should have been excluded by the PCC.

The Appellant’s contentions in relation to Ground 2 are detailed at paras 104 – 111 below. In summary, Dr Imani submitted that the PCC failed to focus on or make sufficient findings in respect of her subjective state of mind, as required by the first stage of the test identified in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391 (“Ivey”); arrived at inconsistent findings between the allegations of dishonesty that were and were not found proven; and made specific errors of reasoning in relation to some of the charges.

The structure of this judgment is as follows: