QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care |
Appellant |
|
- and – General Dental Council -and- |
1st Respondent |
|
Mohamed Amir |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
Mr I Hare QC (instructed by the General Dental Council) for the 1st Respondent
The second respondent, in person, assisted by Ms M Gay as a McKenzie Friend
Hearing date: 9 November 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lane :
A. BACKGROUND
B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
C. CASE LAW
D. THE HEARING
E. DISCUSSION
Ground 1
"but it would definitely help or improve or slow down the deterioration of the symptoms. I felt like he was being honest [the second respondent] did not say that the mouthguard would not work altogether; he said it would make an improvement. He also said that he could not guarantee what scale the improvement would be".
Ground 2
Ground 3
Ground 4
"The Committee first considered your actual state of your knowledge and belief as to the facts. The Committee considers that you held a genuine belief that the statements you made as set out at head of charge 8(b) and its sub-particulars were accurate. The Committee considers that the evidence presented to it demonstrates that your belief in your treatment is deeply-held, and that you did not consider that there was no reasonable body of evidence to support those statements. The Committee considers that you genuinely believe that you had a reasonable body of evidence to support those statements in the form of positive patient experiences and outcomes.
The Committee also considers that your conduct would not be considered dishonest by reference to the standards of ordinary and decent people, as they would consider that you genuinely believed that a reasonable body of opinion existed to support your statements.
For these reasons, the Committee finds that the facts alleged at head of charge 9(b) not proved in respect of head of charge 8(b)".
Ground 5
"Your clinical failings relate to basic and fundamental aspects of the safe practise of dentistry. The Committee was further concerned by the misleading statements that you made on your website about your treatment modality, given the importance of ensuring that published information is accurate and reliable."
Ground 6
"The Committee finds your fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Committee considers that you have not produced sufficient evidence of your insight into, and remediation of, your misconduct. The Committee considers that your misconduct is remediable, relating as it does to basic and fundamental aspects of the safe practise of dentistry, with particular regard to the areas of assessment, examination, informed consent and recordkeeping. The Committee also finds that the misleading statements on your websites are, similarly, easily remediable".
Ground 7
F. DECISION