HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE*

Transcription

1 HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* *The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from the text. RAK-LATOS, Bozena Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2018 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension ** Bozena RAK-LATOS, a dentist, Lek Dent Lodz 1987, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 22 May 2018 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (as amended on 22 May 2018) That, being a registered dentist: 1. On 17 th September 2015 you were convicted in Kielce Regional Court, in Poland, of aiding and abetting offences of fraud contrary to Art 18 3 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Art of the Criminal Code and Art of the Criminal Code. 2. You failed to inform the General Dental Council immediately of your conviction at charge 1 above. 3. Your conduct at charge 2 was a) misleading and/or b) dishonest in that you knew you were required to immediately notify the General Dental Council of your conviction. And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise as a dentist is impaired reason of your conviction and/or misconduct. On 23 May 2018 the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: Mr Werenowski appears on behalf of Mrs Rak-Latos, who is not present at this hearing. He explained the reason for Mrs Rak-Latos s non-attendance, the details of which the Committee heard in private session. Ms Headley appears on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC). At the outset of the hearing Ms Headley made an application under Rule 18(1) of the GDC (Fitness to Practise) Rules (the Rules), to amend charge 1 so as to particularise the nature of Mrs Rak-Latos s conviction, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Polish Criminal Code as well as the evidence contained in the documents before the Committee. Mr Werenowski confirmed that he had no objection to the proposed amendment. RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -1/10-

2 The Committee has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It was satisfied that the amendment to charge 1 could be made without injustice. Accordingly, it acceded to Ms Headley s application and amended charge 1 to read as follows: On 17 th September 2015 you were convicted in Kielce Regional Court, in Poland, of aiding and abetting offences of fraud contrary to Art 18 3 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Art of the Criminal Code and Art of the Criminal Code. The GDC s case Mrs Rak-Latos registered with the GDC as a dentist in December 2012, having qualified in Poland as a dentist in The background to this case is that the GDC received an anonymous complaint relating to Mrs Rak-Latos s alleged conviction. The GDC carried out further checks and received a document from the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records (UKCA-ECR) which showed that on 17 September 2015 Mrs Rak-Latos had been convicted of aiding and abetting offences of fraud (head of charge 1). The GDC alleges that Mrs Rak-Latos failed to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction at head of charge 1 (head of charge 2) and that her conduct in this regard was misleading (head of charge 3(a)) and/or dishonest (head of charge 3(b)), in that she knew that she was required to immediately notify the GDC of her conviction. Mrs Rak-Latos s case At the outset of the hearing Mr Werenowski, on behalf of Mrs Rak-Latos, admitted heads of charges 1 and 2 but not heads of charges 3(a) and 3(b). He referred to Mrs Rak-Latos s three witness statements to the GDC dated 11 September 2017, 30 December 2017 and 18 May 2018 respectively in which she set out her position in relation to the charges against her. In those statements Mrs Rak-Latos set out the circumstances surrounding the conviction, for which she received a one-year sentence, suspended for two years. Mrs Rak-Latos was also required to pay a fine. Mrs Rak-Latos also set out her reasons why she failed to notify the GDC. In her statement dated 11 September 2017, Mrs Rak-Latos stated that she advised her Polish professional dental body of the conviction immediately, as she was obligated to do. She further stated: After explaining the context of what had transpired I faced no disciplinary, or other sanction and it was accepted that I was negligent, rather than dishonest in my involvement in this matter In her statement dated 30 December 2017 Mrs Rak-Latos explained that she was unable to inform the GDC about the Polish court conviction due to her health and provided a document in support of that contention. In her statement dated 18 May Mrs Rak-Latos set out the chronology of events at the material times. She explained that on returning to the UK to work on 5 January 2017 she worked for herself at her newly established clinic. [Private material removed] Mrs Rak-Latos went on to state that she accepted that she should have notified the GDC of her earlier conviction and that she did not do so. She further stated: I accept that I should with hindsight have been more diligent with checking and re-checking my GDC obligations. The Committee has considered all of the evidence before it provided by both parties. This included the GDC s prosecution bundle which includes copies of documents relating to Mrs Rak-Latos conviction as well as a witness statement of a GDC member of staff, signed and dated 30 December Ms Headley indicated that Mr Werenowski did not object to the content of that witness statement and did not propose to call that witness to give evidence. The Committee confirmed that it did not wish to ask questions of the GDC member of staff and therefore that witness was not called to give evidence. RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -2/10-

3 The Committee is aware that Mrs Rak-Latos has not been able to attend the hearing and therefore it has not heard her give evidence or be cross-examined. The Committee noted that there were conflicting statements regarding notification to her Polish regulator, however, overall there was consistency of the remainder of the content of the statements, and the Committee considered that it could give weight to the statements. The Committee has had regard to the submissions made by both parties and has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It has borne in mind that the burden of proof is on the GDC and that it must decide the facts according to the civil standard of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities. Mrs Rak-Latos need not prove anything. In respect of head of charge 3(b), which alleges that Mrs Rak-Latos s conduct was dishonest, the Committee received advice from the Legal Adviser of the test it must apply, as set out in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67. The Committee was advised that the approach it should take was as follows: (i) it must first ascertain (subjectively) the state of Mrs Rak-Latos s knowledge or belief as to the facts; (ii) the reasonableness of the belief is a matter of evidence going to whether Mrs Rak- Latos genuinely held the belief, but it is not a requirement that the belief must be reasonable, merely whether or not it is genuinely held; (iii) it must then consider whether that conduct was dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people; (iv) there is no requirement that Mrs Rak-Latos must appreciate that what she has done was, by those standards, dishonest. I will now announce the Committee s findings in relation to each head of charge: 1. Admitted and found proved Mrs Rak-Latos admitted this charge in her witness statement dated 18 May 2018 and through Mr Werenowski at the outset of the hearing. In addition, the Committee has had regard to the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records (UKCA-ECR) document, signed and dated 10 August 2017, which sets out the details of the offence, the name of the convicting court and the date of conviction. The Committee has also had regard to a translation of the Judgement of the Court in Poland, dated 17 September 2015, which sets out the charges, the facts of the case and the Court s decision. Taking all these factors into account, the Committee has found this charge proved. 2. Admitted and found proved The Committee first considered whether Mrs Rak-Latos had a duty to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction dated 17 September In so doing, it has had regard to the GDC s Standards for the Dental Team (effective 30 September 2013) which states that a registrant must inform the GDC immediately if he/she has been found guilty of a criminal offence anywhere in the world. It also noted the guidance on reporting criminal proceedings. In the light of the GDC s Standards and guidance, the Committee is satisfied that Mrs Rak-Latos did have a duty to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction. The Committee then went on to consider whether Mrs Rak-Latos failed to notify the GDC. It has borne in mind Mrs RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -3/10-

4 3.a. 3.b. Rak-Latos s acceptance that she did not do so for the reasons set out in her witness statements. Mr Werenowski on behalf of Mrs Rak-Latos also admitted this charge at the outset of the hearing. The Committee has also had regard to the witness statement of a GDC member of staff, in which she stated that she had conducted a search of the GDC s database and GDC s Registration and Customer Advice and Information Team documents to determine whether or not Mrs Rak- Latos had notified the GDC of her conviction from September 2015 onwards and that she was unable to find any correspondence or telephone attendance notes relating to her declaring this matter to the GDC. The Committee therefore finds this charge proved. Found proved The Committee is aware that the charge is that Mrs Rak-Latos s conduct was misleading, as opposed to intentionally misleading or deliberately misleading. In this case, the Committee finds that Mrs Rak-Latos s failure to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction dated 17 September 2015 was misleading. This was because up until the GDC carried out its own investigations into the matter in August 2017 it was not aware that Mrs Rak-Latos had been convicted of a criminal offence in Poland on 17 September In the absence of such notification, the GDC was unaware that Mrs Rak-Latos had any criminal convictions. Found not proved Mrs Rak-Latos has accepted that she failed to inform the GDC immediately that she had been convicted on 17 September The Committee has considered whether she knew that she was required to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction. The Committee noted the explanations that Mrs Rak-Latos gave in her statements with regard to reporting her conviction to her Polish regulator. The Committee did not find this evidence of assistance in determining her state of mind with regard to reporting her conviction to the GDC. The Committee considered the principles set out in the case of Ivey v Genting. The Committee noted there was no direct evidence as to the actual state of Mrs Rak- Latos s knowledge or belief in relation to informing the GDC at the relevant time. Factors the Committee took into consideration were the personal impact on Mrs Rak-Latos of the conviction, [private material removed] and that she was not living or working in the United Kingdom. The Committee noted the contents of Mrs Rak- Latos s statement of 18 May 2018 in which she conceded that she should have reported the conviction to the GDC on her return to the United Kingdom at the beginning of From this the Committee drew the inference that her belief was that there was no prior requirement to report her conviction to the GDC. The Committee has had regard to the lack of direct evidence as to Mrs Rak-Latos s actual state of mind at the relevant time as to what she said regarding reporting the conviction to the GDC on her return to the United Kingdom. It has also had regard to the evidence of the circumstances at the time of her conviction. Taking these matters into account, the Committee could not be satisfied as to Mrs Rak-Latos s state of mind with regard to reporting the conviction immediately to the GDC. Consequently, the Committee could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable and honest member of the public would consider that Mrs Rak- RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -4/10-

5 Latos had acted dishonestly. We move to Stage Two. On 25 May 2018 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: The Committee has considered the submissions made by Ms Headley, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), and those made by Mr Werenowski on behalf of Mrs Rak- Latos. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Ms Headley addressed the Committee as to Mrs Rak-Latos s previous fitness to practise history. She advised that the GDC issued Mrs Rak-Latos with a letter of advice on 7 January 2015 following concerns that had been raised in respect of the standard of treatment she had provided to a patient. Furthermore, the GDC had received three separate complaints concerning Mrs Rak-Latos s clinical practice which have been considered by its Case Examiners, who in turn have decided that the complaints should be referred to a fitness to practise committee for determination. Ms Headley submitted that the findings against Mrs Rak-Latos are serious and amount to misconduct. She invited the Committee to conclude that Mrs Rak-Latos s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction in Poland, dated 17 September 2015, of aiding and abetting offences of fraud, as well as her misconduct in failing to the inform the GDC immediately of her conviction. Ms Headley said that there was no evidence before the Committee to satisfy it that Mrs Rak-Latos had acknowledged any fault as to her wrong doing or shown any insight into the seriousness of the charges against her. In support of that proposition, Ms Headley referred to extracts from Mrs Rak-Latos s witness statements in which Mrs Rak-Latos claimed that she was innocent of her conviction and she sought to minimise her involvement in the offences. Ms Headley also submitted that the nature of Mrs Rak-Latos s conviction, which involves issues relating to her probity, is so serious that a finding of current impairment is necessary in the wider public interest. She submitted that the appropriate sanction in this case is that of erasure. Mr Werenowski confirmed that Mrs Rak-Latos is not currently practising as a dentist in the UK by virtue of an interim order of suspension on her registration. He asked the Committee to consider the context of Mrs Rak-Latos s offending behaviour which led to her conviction in This included the fact that the main culprit in the case was a close family member who was a pharmacist who took some 42 blank prescriptions from Mrs Rak-Latos over a six year period, for which the family member later claimed financial compensation. Mrs Rak-Latos s position was that she knew nothing about this but when criminal charges were pressed against her, she was aware that her defence would need to implicate the family member who was unwell at that time. Mrs Rak-Latos therefore took the blame for providing the prescriptions and pleaded guilty without a full trial taking place so as to assist that family member. Mr Werenowski contended that Mrs Rak-Latos received no financial gain in relation to these matters and the value of the prescription she provided came to some 4,500, whereas the total obtained by the family member came to more than 100,000. In respect of Mrs Rak-Latos s failure to notify the GDC of the matter, Mr Werenowski conceded on behalf of his client that this was something she overlooked but did not do it with premediated intent. He asked the Committee to have regard to the circumstances Mrs Rak- RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -5/10-

6 Latos was facing at that time on her return to the UK in January This included health matters, the details of which the Committee heard in private. Mr Werenowski asked the Committee to have regard to the fact that Mrs Rak-Latos has worked as a dentist for some 31 years and has not been the subject of criminal proceedings in the UK. In summary, Mr Werenowski invited the Committee to consider making a direction suspending Mrs Rak-Latos s registration and said that this sanction would satisfy the protection of patients and address the wider public interest, including the maintenance of confidence in the profession and the declaration and upholding of proper standards of conduct. Facts found proved The facts of this case are that on 17 September 2015 Mrs Rak-Latos was convicted in Kielce Regional Court, in Poland, of aiding and abetting offences of fraud contrary to Art 18 3 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Art of the Criminal Code and Art of the Criminal Code (charge 1). She failed to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction (Charge 2) and her conduct in this regard was misleading (charge 3(a)). Misconduct The Committee first considered whether the facts found proved at charges 2 and 3(a) amount to misconduct. In so doing, it has had regard to all the evidence before it, as well as the submissions made. The Committee has considered the GDC s Standards for the Dental Team (September 2013). Throughout its considerations the Committee has kept in mind the relevant case law regarding the meaning of misconduct within the context of regulatory proceedings. Having regard to its findings, the Committee considers that Mrs Rak Latos has breached the following paragraphs of the GDC Standards for the Dental Team (September 2013): You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute You must inform the GDC immediately if you are subject to any criminal proceedings anywhere in the world. The Committee considers that Mrs Rak Latos s failure to inform the GDC immediately of her conviction dated 17 September 2015, which it found to be misleading, is serious. The GDC only found out about the conviction as a result of an anonymous complaint and not through any disclosure by Mrs Rak Latos. Up until August 2017, when the GDC carried out further enquiries into the matter, it was not aware that Mrs Rak Latos had been convicted of a serious offence. During that intervening period of some two years the GDC had no knowledge of the conviction and therefore it was not in a position to consider whether, given the conviction, Mrs Rak Latos posed a risk to patients and the wider public interest. Notwithstanding the personal difficulties Mrs Rak Latos may have been facing at the time, the Committee considers that Mrs Rak Latos had a professional responsibility to adhere to the GDC s Guidance on reporting criminal proceedings (September 2013). The Committee finds that Mrs Rak Latos s conduct in respect of these findings is serious. In all the circumstances the Committee has determined that the facts found proved at charges 2 and 3(a) amount to misconduct. Decision on current impairment The Committee next considered whether Mrs Rak Latos s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction. This was in relation to aiding and abetting offences of RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -6/10-

7 fraud contrary to Art 18 3 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Art of the Criminal Code and Art of the Criminal Code. The Committee has had regard to the translation of the judgement of Kielce Regional Court, Poland, which sets out Mrs Rak Latos s involvement in the fraud between June 2007 and March The judgement said that she was acting in short period of time in a realization of premeditated intent and for the purposes of financial gain for [name of family member] and with the intent that [name of family member] would commit a prohibited act involving an unlawful modification of a prescription ie. writing names of drugs on and then misleading the.. Polish National Health Fund in Kielce with regard to the basis under which to receive reimbursements for the prescribed drugs. and by doing so it causes the. Polish National Health Fund in Kielce to dispose of their assets to their disadvantage.. The Committee has had regard to the comments made by Mrs Rak Latos in her witness statements to the GDC. In her statement dated 11 September 2017 Mrs Rak Latos states that she pleaded guilty to the offence to help her family member but did so on the basis that she was not aware of what she was doing. She further states that she did not understand why the judgement that was later produced by the court published her admission as being a deliberate one of knowingly assisting her sister. In her later statement dated 18 May 2018 Mrs Rak Latos confirmed that she received a one year sentence, suspended for two years, and that she also paid a fine. She also confirmed that she did not appeal her conviction. She also explained that she did not alter the prescriptions but rather her family member accessing the blank prescriptions from her premises and filled them in as she wished. The Committee has borne in mind that it has not had the opportunity to ask questions of Mrs Rak Latos in respect of these matters as she has not been able to attend the hearing due to personal reasons. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that Mrs Rak Latos appears to be minimising her involvement in the matters. The Committee considers that Mrs Rak Latos s conviction in relation to aiding and abetting offences of fraud was serious. The incidents took place over a long period of time and on numerous occasions, involving the use of some 44 blank prescriptions. Her conduct was in the context of her professional duties as a dentist and amounted to a serious breach of trust as well as a breach of one of the fundamental requirements of the profession, namely that a dentist must act honestly. The Committee has had regard to the following paragraphs of GDC s guidance Standards for Dental Professionals (2013) which states that as a dentist you must: 1.3 Be honest and act with integrity You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute. Having regard to the serious nature of Mrs Rak Latos s conviction, which relate to matters of probity, the Committee considers that public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Accordingly, the Committee has determined that Mrs Rak Latos s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her conviction. Turning to whether Mrs Rak Latos s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct, the Committee has taken into account Mrs Rak Latos s explanation that she did not appreciate the fact that she should have reported the conviction to the GDC and she now accepts that she should have. Nevertheless, the Committee takes a serious view of Mrs Rak Latos s misleading conduct in failing to notify the GDC that she had been convicted. She had a professional duty to notify the GDC in accordance with its requirement and she failed to do so. It considers that this amounts to a serious departure of what is expected of a dental RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -7/10-

8 professional. Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that Mrs Rak Latos s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of that misconduct. Again, the Committee considers that public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Decision on sanction The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on Mrs Rak Latos s registration. It recognises that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have that effect, but to protect patients and the wider public interest. The Committee has taken into account the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees, including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (October 2016). It has applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Mrs Rak Latos s own interests. The Committee has had regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. The aggravating factors identified by the Committee include: The serious nature of the conviction, the offences in question having taken place over a period of some 6 years, resulting in financial gain for the family member and causing financial loss to the Polish National Health Fund. The conviction relates to matters of probity, which amount to a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. A failure to acknowledge the extent of her involvement in the matters for which she was convicted, or any understanding as the seriousness of the matters. A failure to comply with the GDC s standards in not disclosing her conviction to her regulator. In mitigation, the Committee has noted: There is no evidence that she received financial gain The personal matters that were prevailing in her life at the time when she should have disclosed her conviction to the GDC. While noting the details of Mrs Rak Latos s previous fitness to practise history, as referred to by Ms Headley, the Committee has not taken this into account as an aggravating factor given that the complaints have yet to be considered by a Fitness to Practise Committee. Further, it notes that the warning was issued in January 2015, over three years ago, and did not reach the threshold of seriousness to warrant a referral to a Fitness to Practise Committee. In respect of the submissions made by Mr Werenowski regarding the mitigating factors to be taken into account regarding the conviction in 2015, the Committee is of the view that given the serious nature of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction, these factors override the mitigation that has been advanced. The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least restrictive. In view of the serious nature of the findings in this case, including the gravity of Mrs Rak-Latos s conviction, the Committee has determined that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case without taking any action in respect of her registration or with a reprimand. Likewise, in the Committee s judgement, conditions would not be sufficient for the maintenance of public confidence in the dental profession and upholding the reputation of the dental profession given the serious nature of Mrs Rak-Latos s conviction, which concerns aiding and abetting offences of fraud. RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -8/10-

9 The Committee went on to consider whether to suspend Mrs Rak-Latos s registration. Mrs Rak-Latos s involvement in aiding and abetting offences of fraud took place over a long period of time and for the purposes of financial gain for a member of her family. It took place in the context of her professional practice in providing the family member on numerous occasions with a total of 44 prescriptions. This amounted to a serious breach of trust. There is no evidence before the Committee of any remorse or insight from Mrs Rak-Latos as to her criminal conduct. Instead, it is apparent from her witness statements that she has sought to minimise her actions. The Committee is in no doubt that Mrs Rak-Latos s involvement in the matters which led to her conviction is serious. Given the gravity of the conviction, the Committee has concluded that suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient for maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards. Dishonest conduct is unacceptable and is highly damaging to a registrant s fitness to practise and to public confidence in dental professionals. The Committee is satisfied that Mrs Rak- Latos s conviction is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the Dentists Register. Accordingly, the Committee has determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is that of erasure. The Committee has taken into account the impact of such a direction on Mrs Rak-Latos s own interests. However, in the light of the serious nature of the conviction, the Committee considers that the public interest outweighs Mrs Rak-Latos s own interests in this matter. The Committee now invites submissions from both parties as to whether Mrs Rak-Latos s registration should be suspended immediately, pending the taking effect of its substantive direction of erasure. Decision on immediate order In accordance with Rule 21(3) of the General Dental Council (GDC) (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order 2006 the interim order of suspension on Mrs Rak-Latos s registration is hereby revoked. Having directed that Mrs Rak-Latos s name be erased from the Dentists Register, the Committee has considered whether to make an order for immediate suspension of Mrs Rak- Latos s registration in accordance with Section 30(1) of the Dentists Act 1984 (the Act). In so doing, the Committee has had regard to the submissions made by Ms Headley, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), and those made by Mr Werenowski on behalf of Mrs Rak-Latos. Ms Headley has submitted that such an order is in the public interest, given the seriousness of the Committee s findings. Mr Werenowski has made no submissions on this matter but said that it is a matter for Mrs Rak-Latos as to whether she will take steps to appeal against the Committee s decision. Mr Werenowski also advised that Mrs Rak-Latos is in Poland and is not currently practising as a dentist. The Committee is aware that were it not to make an order for immediate suspension, Mrs Rak- Latos would be able to continue to practise without any restrictions on her registration pending any appeal. The Committee has made clear in its previous determination that it was satisfied that Mrs Rak-Latos s conviction is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the Dentists Register. It is further satisfied that immediate action is required to protect public RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -9/10-

10 confidence in the profession and that it would be inconsistent to allow her the opportunity to continue to practise during the intervening appeal period. Notwithstanding the indication that Mrs Rak-Latos is currently in Poland and is not practising, it is aware that she could return to the UK to practise as a dentist at any time, should she choose to do so. Accordingly, in accordance with Section 30(1) of the Act, the Committee has determined that it is in the public interest that Mrs Rak-Latos s registration be suspended forthwith. The effect of the foregoing direction and this order is that Mrs Rak-Latos s registration will be suspended forthwith. Unless Mrs Rak-Latos exercises her right of appeal, the substantive direction of erasure will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served on her. Should Mrs Rak-Latos exercise her right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal proceedings. That concludes this case. RAK-LATOS Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -10/10-