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

The Chairman of the PCC made a statement conveying the decision later the same day (31 May 2022). It is reproduced within the PCC’s Determination. No criticism is made of the way that Counsels’ submissions were summarised. The PCC’s decision was expressed as follows:

“The Committee took into account the submissions made by both parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser.

In making its decision, the Committee acknowledged the importance and the significance of the evidence it was being asked to consider. It noted that it may be the sole evidence with regard to the allegation of dishonesty. However it noted that that was not in itself a reason to exclude the evidence. The Committee was of the view the collation of information from the FP17 forms amounted to a business record, and, as such was generally admissible in regulatory proceedings. The GDC also considered that the information came from a reliable source, namely the NHS. Furthermore, the Committee noted Mr Lee’s oral evidence regarding the auditing of the claims data and that out of 10 per cent of the data audited, 99.9 per cent was found to be accurate. The Committee consider that a 10 per cent sample was a reasonable amount to show that the data was reliable. The Committee also considered that you will have the opportunity to present your own evidence with reference to the relevant dental records and the evidence of your expert.

The Committee considered carefully the fact that the FP17 forms were no longer available. The Committee also had regarding to Hayley Turner’s witness statement...in which she stated that concerns were initially raised about your claiming in 2013. However, the Committee noted that there was no further information contained in her witness statement about what those concerns specifically involved.

The Committee, therefore, do not accept that the evidence is demonstrably unreliable and determined that it should not be excluded.”