Court of Appeal confirms Aga was wrong

Delivering the leading judgment, Lady Justice Nicola Davies said:

51. In my judgment the correct interpretation of the language of sections 27B, 29A and 30 of the 1984 Act is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judge and his conclusion that only one period of suspension is imposed. If the judge was correct in his interpretation of the sections, it would undermine the overriding objective which underpins the provisions governing PCC hearings. It has the potential to undermine the ability of a registrant to remediate the failings which led to the finding of misconduct, one purpose of a review hearing. It could also negate the purpose of a review directed under section 27B(6)(b) as such a review may not occur if the combined period of a directed and ordered suspension exceeded 12 months. Thus, a dentist subject to a review, could return to practice without satisfying a PCC that their fitness to practise was no longer impaired. This would ride roughshod over the carefully drafted provisions of the 1984 Act which at their core reflect the need to protect the public. Put shortly, the judge’s interpretation of these provisions of the 1984 Act was wrong. It follows that Morris J was correct in his interpretation of these sections.

She also gave a helpful reminder to judges considering appeals:

52. Finally, should a judge choose to raise a point not advocated for by either party, which is contrary to the established practice of a professional disciplinary tribunal and which has implications which go beyond the parameters of the instant case, the fair and sensible course would be to invite the parties to provide both written and full oral submissions before any determination is made by the court.

Blake Morgan has significant experience in advising regulatory bodies conducting investigations and presenting cases, and for those facing investigations, prosecutions and compliance action. Find out more about our regulatory expertise here.