Ability to remedy conduct not sufficient to avoid erasure-Case: Shah v GDC [2011] All ER (D) (Nov) UKSC 44

He appealed on the basis that the Committee erroneously imposed a sanction of erasure  which taking into account his mitigation was disproportionate. He argued that  the Committee had considered a lack of remorse for conduct to be the same as a demonstration of a lack of insight on his part. He also argued that there was a central issue of the risk or recurrence of his conduct  which in his case was said to have been remedied and capable of remedy.

Held that the outcome was not an inappropriate sanction. There is a distinction between expressions of remorse and demonstrations of insight  and in this case the absence of the latter had been particularly influencing in their decision. It is also important to note that in cases involving sexual misconduct the possibility of a registrant redressing behaviour carries less weight than in cases involving lack of competence or clinical errors.

Professional disciplinary and regulatory | dentists

View all stories

Contact Us Now