*Please note that the schedules are private documents and cannot be disclosed BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee - Oct-Dec 2014 Page -1/14-

Transcription

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC BAMGBELU, Abiodun Olayinka Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2014 High Court Appeal: June 2015 Outcome: Erased with immediate suspension** **On 6 January 2015, Mr Bamgbelu appealed against the Professional Conduct Committee's decision to erase him from the register. On 23 June 2015, the High Court dismissed his appeal, therefore his erasure will be effected. The High Court concluded: The General Dental Council's professional conduct committee had been right to erase a dentist from the register where he had persistently sent seriously abusive and offensive messages to GDC staff. His behaviour had been such that he was plainly unsuitable to hold any professional position or qualification which brought him into contact with members of the public. Abiodun Olayinka BAMGBELU, a dentist, FDS RCS Eng 1991 Statutory Exam 1993, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 13 October 2014 for the resumption of an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (amended on 14 October 2014) That, being a registered dentist: 1. Between approximately 26 September 2013 and 20 November 2013 you sent s and a letter to Mr A (identified in Schedule A*) and in your communications you made one or more: (a) abusive or, in the alternative, offensive comments as set out in Schedule 1*, which included one or more such comments: (i) (ii) referring to nationality, race or ethnicity; using sexual language or content; (b) threatening comments as set out in Schedule 2*; (c) offensive comments referring to nationality, race or ethnicity as set out in Schedule 3*; (d) offensive comments using sexual language or content as set out in Schedule 4*. 2. On or around 19 December 2013 you sent a letter to Mrs B (identified in Schedule A*) and in your letter you made: *Please note that the schedules are private documents and cannot be disclosed BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee - Oct-Dec 2014 Page -1/14-

2 (a) (b) one or more abusive or, in the alternative, offensive comments as set out in Schedule 5*; an offensive comment using sexual language or content as set out in Schedule 6*. 3. Your conduct at each of paragraphs 1 and 2 was intentionally abusive, threatening or offensive, or such that you were aware that it may be abusive, threatening or offensive. 4. Between approximately 23 January and 27 January 2014 you communicated by with Mr C (identified in Schedule B*) and in your s you: (a) (b) (c) made an abusive or, in the alternative, offensive comment as set out in Schedule 7; repeated the comment at paragraph 4(a) in s sent on 24 January 2014 and 26 January 2014; made one or more offensive comments referring to nationality, race or ethnicity as set out in Schedule 8*. 5. On 31 March 2014 you communicated by with Mrs D (identified in Schedule B) and in your s you: (a) (b) (c) (d) made one or more abusive or, in the alternative, offensive comments as set out in Schedule 9*; made one or more offensive comments referring to nationality, race, ethnicity or religion as set out in Schedule 10*; made an offensive comment using sexual language or content as set out in Schedule 11*; repeated the comments at each of paragraphs 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) in an you sent at 22:31 on 31 March Your conduct at each of paragraphs 4 and 5 was intentionally abusive or offensive, or such that you were aware that it may be abusive or offensive. 7. Between 14 February 2014 and 10 April 2014 you sent one or more s to an employee of the General Dental Council ( GDC ) and/or a legal advisor to the GDC in which you used emotional and/or abusive language in breach of Condition 7 of an Interim Order for conditions that was imposed on your registration on 14 February At a hearing before the General Dental Council s ( GDC ) Interim Orders Committee ( the Committee ) on 10 April 2014 you provided to the Committee a copy of an sent to you by Capsticks Solicitors ( Capsticks ), which was not a complete and/or accurate copy of the original in that: (a) words had been removed from the original , in particular: (i) (ii) (iii) due to expire on 19 February 2014 do not cover the provision ; until such time as you have appropriate ; in place please confirm, by return, that you ; BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -2/14-

3 (b) words had been underlined when they were not underlined in the original , in particular: (i) (ii) dental treatment ; indemnity cover. 9. In respect of the copy that you provided on 10 April 2014, you said to the Committee: (a) (b) I have not cut anything out of it ; That is the that was sent to me. 10. Your conduct at paragraph 9 was: (a) misleading; (b) dishonest, in that you knew that the copy you provided on 10 April 2014 was not a complete and/or accurate copy of the original You have failed to co-operate with the GDC s investigation into your fitness to practise in that, despite requests made by or on behalf of the GDC, you have not agreed to undergo a health assessment/medical examination. And that, in consequence of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct. Mr Bamgbelu was not present and was not represented. On 17 December 2014 the Chairman announced the findings of fact to the Counsel for the GDC: The Committee has carefully considered all the evidence presented to it in this case. It has considered Mr Singh s submissions on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC) and Mr Bamgbelu s written representations. In addition to the correspondence which formed part of the bundles presented to the Committee at the start of this hearing, Mr Bamgbelu has sent a large number of s to the solicitors representing the Council in these proceedings (Capsticks solicitors). The Committee received a number of additional s as advised by the Legal Adviser where potentially relevant material was apparent. The Committee heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It was advised not to assume or make any inferences from Mr Bamgbelu s absence save for his written representations which were considered by the Committee at an earlier stage in relation to proceeding in his absence. The Committee was advised to consider what parts of Mr Bamgbelu s written representations, which it has accepted, are relevant to the issues to be decided and attach such weight as it thinks is appropriate. The Legal Adviser reminded the Committee to have in mind that what Mr Bamgbelu has said has not been supported by evidence which has been tested one way or the other, as it might have been had he attended and supported what he said by way of sworn evidence. The Committee was advised to look at each charge and each sub-part of the charge separately and to apply ordinary everyday language to the wording of the charge. The burden of proving each charge and each sub-part of the charge remained on the Council throughout, from start to finish. The standard of proof that would have to be reached before any charge could be BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -3/14-

4 found proved is the civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. If a fact is not found to be more likely than not to be made out then the charge must be found not proved. At the commencement of these proceedings in October 2014, the Committee considered an application by Mr Singh under rule 54 of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (the Rules) that this hearing should proceed in Mr Bamgbelu s absence. The Committee determined to proceed in Mr Bamgbelu s absence and delivered its decision at that stage. The Committee then considered a rule 25 application by Mr Singh to join additional allegations to the Notification of Hearing. In a letter dated 15 th August 2014, the Council s representatives informed Mr Bamgbelu of the Council s intention to seek to join to the existing allegations, additional allegations arising out of his communications with members of staff of the GDC and the Oxford Deanery, on the basis that they are of a similar kind. Mr Singh submitted that the additional allegations satisfied the relevant rules in that they are of a similar kind, Mr Bamgbelu had been given notice of the additional allegations and given an opportunity to submit representations within 28 days in accordance with rule 25. Mr Singh submitted that there was a strong public interest in the additional allegations being considered together with the existing allegations because the additional allegations are serious. The Committee was satisfied that the procedural requirements of rule 25 had been met. It concluded that the additional allegations are of a similar kind to the allegations which have been referred to it by the Investigating Committee. It determined to exercise its power under rule 25 to consider the new allegations at the same time as the original allegations, notwithstanding that the new allegations had not been included in the Notification of Hearing. Mr Singh applied to amend the Notification of Hearing under rule 18, in particular schedule 1-item 1; schedule 4-item 4; and schedule 11-item 1. He submitted that the amendments were not substantial in nature but errors in transcribing parts of Mr Bamgbelu s s into the schedules referred to in the Charge. He submitted that Mr Bamgbelu had been notified of this application in advance, no unfairness arose from the application and the amendment would not change the nature of the Charge. The Committee acceded to the application to amend the schedules to the Charges having decided that no unfairness to Mr Bamgbelu would result thereby. The hearing subsequently adjourned part-heard due to lack of time and resumed on 15 th December for a further 5 days. At the start of the resumed hearing, the Committee was advised to re-consider whether to proceed with the hearing in Mr Bamgbelu s absence. Mr Singh presented the Committee with evidence that notification of this resumed hearing was sent to Mr Bamgbelu by way of s dated 18 th November 2014 and 11 th December He submitted that 28 clear days notice had been given to Mr Bamgbelu. Mr Singh also presented the Committee with a bundle of further correspondence sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Capsticks solicitors in the adjourned period. The Committee considered the evidence presented. It was of the view that the circumstances had not changed; and Mr Bamgbelu had not indicated any intention to attend the hearing neither had he requested an adjournment. The Committee concluded from his subsequent correspondence to the Council s solicitors during the adjourned period that Mr Bamgbelu is well aware of these proceedings and has voluntarily absented himself. It determined to continue to exercise its discretion to proceed with the hearing notwithstanding Mr Bamgbelu s absence. BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -4/14-

5 Witnesses The Committee heard oral evidence from Mrs D, a legal adviser for the GDC who communicated with Mr Bamgbelu in relation to his letter of claim to the Council. The Committee found Mrs D to be a credible witness who gave balanced and fair responses in her evidence. The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr A, who corresponded with Mr Bamgbelu in his then capacity as a GDC caseworker. The Committee found Mr A to be a credible witness who was straight forward in his evidence. The Committee also heard oral evidence from Mr C, a senior member of staff with the GDC. Mr C sent correspondence to Mr Bamgbelu in line with the Rules which require that registrants be notified of the outcome of fitness to practise proceedings against them. The Committee found Mr C to be a credible witness who gave measured responses in his evidence. The Committee heard oral evidence from Mrs B. Mrs B communicated with Mr Bamgbelu in her role with the Oxford Deanery assisting in his compliance with conditions imposed on his registration by a PCC in The Committee found Mrs B to be a credible and reliable witness whose evidence was consistent. The Committee received witness statements from Mr E dated 7 th October 2014 and from Mr F dated 9 th October Since paragraph 10 alleges dishonesty, the Committee was advised to apply the two-part test which is set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982] In determining whether the prosecution has proved [and this is a criminal case so the language is different] that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did. The claim of a defence under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Part of the allegations concern s and letters sent by Mr Bamgbelu to employees of the GDC who were communicating with him in the course of their regulatory duties, and a letter sent to a registrant who was assisting the GDC and Mr Bamgbelu in the context of a Conditional Registration Order previously made by a Professional Conduct Committee. Mr Bamgbelu stated in one of his communications that he considered his right of freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 ECHR, to be relevant. He stated in his dated 1 st October 2013 at 9:29 to Mr A that Freedom of expression is inviolable; absolutely sacrosanct. ARTICLE 10 ECHR. ECHR overrides all else. BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -5/14-

6 The Committee received written and oral submissions from Mr Singh on the relevance and effect of Article 10 ECHR in regulatory proceedings. It heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Further as a result of the adjournment in October 2014, the Committee had available to it copies of the transcripts of the previous session which it has referred to in the course of its deliberations including the legal advice. Whistleblowing The Committee considered whether Mr Bamgbelu was doing no more than bringing to the GDC s attention and to a wider circulation his allegations of serious shortcomings in the GDC s management and staff. The Committee, having considered the tone and content of the s sent, rejected this assertion. Many of the matters could not be said to be already in the public domain nor amount to legitimate whistleblowing since they contained personal remarks about the individual employees as set out in the allegations below. Proportionality The Committee had in mind that in relation to Article 10(1) and (2) it must consider the proportionality of removing or restricting, to any degree, the right to freedom of expression under Article 10(1) if such expression was found to be in contravention of Article 10(2). The proportionality to be considered is striking the appropriate balance between the private interest of Mr Bamgbelu in expressing his opinion freely and the wider public interest under Article 10(2) for a necessary intervention or restriction of that freedom. In considering paragraphs 1(a), 2(a), 4(a) and 5(a) which allege that Mr Bamgbelu made abusive, or in the alternative, offensive comments in his s and letters, the Committee has adopted the plain meaning of the word abusive as defined in the Oxford dictionary which is extremely offensive and insulting. The Committee found that Article 10(2) is engaged by the language used by Mr Bamgbelu and the circumstances in which it was used. It considered the question of proportionality before finding any of the charges set out below to be proved. The Committee determined in relation to each charge that it has found proved, its finding is a necessary and proportionate interference and restriction of Mr Bamgbelu s right under Article 10(1). The Committee has decided that this determination does not require direct quotes from Mr Bamgbelu s s because they contain graphic material which is capable of causing offence as well as not being in the public interest since this determination will be published on the GDC s website. The Committee s findings in relation to each head and sub-head of charge are as follows: 1 (a)(i) Proved 1 (a)(ii) Proved Mr A was carrying out his legitimate task as a Caseworker requesting standard information from a registered dentist undergoing fitness to practise proceedings. The Committee noted that Mr A in his evidence said that he found the comments hurtful, personal and upsetting but overall unnecessary and disproportionate to the request he made of Mr Bamgbelu. The Committee found that the s dated 26/9/13, 4/10/13, 6/10/13, 11/10/13, 14/10/13, 18/10/13, 11/11/13 and 20/11/13, sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr A contained abusive comments which referred to race and ethnicity. BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -6/14-

7 1 (b) Proved 1 (c) Proved 1 (d) Proved 2 (a) Proved 2 (b) Proved 3 Proved Mr A told the Committee that he found Mr Bamgbelu s comments hurtful, offensive, hostile and with an evil intent to intimidate and undermine his role. The Committee found that the s dated 29/09/13, 6/10/13 and 11/11/13, sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr A contained abusive comments which included comments using sexual language. The Committee noted that Mr A found the contents of Mr Bamgbelu s s intimidating and offensive. He told the Committee that the period when he dealt with Mr Bamgbelu was very difficult and the only way I could deal with it was to shut out my feelings. The Committee noted that Mr A informed Mr Bambgelu in an dated 25 th September 2013 that the GDC will not tolerate correspondence which make unfounded accusations of its staff. The Committee found that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Bamgbelu s comments were designed to be threatening. Mr A told the Committee that he found the comments offensive, rude, objectionable, unnecessary and completely disproportionate. The Committee found that the s dated 29/9/13, 4/10/13, 9/10/13 and 18/10/13, sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr A contained offensive and unprovoked comments which referred to nationality, race and ethnicity. The Committee found that the s dated 1/10/13, 6/10/13, 18/10/13, 21/10/13 and 22/10/13 sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr A contain sexual language in multiple respects. The s which include references to minors, contain extreme comments of a graphic nature which are grossly offensive to any reader. Mr Bamgbelu sent a pre-action letter dated 19 th December 2013 to Mrs B in her role with the Oxford Deanery. The letter was also copied to Mrs B s senior colleagues. Mrs B told the Committee that she found them to be embarrassing, unprofessional and offensive. The Committee found that the contents of Mr Bamgbelu s letter to Mrs B were abusive. The Committee found that the comments and allegation made by Mr Bamgbelu in his letter of 19 th December 2013 to Mrs B were extremely offensive and without basis. There is no evidence before the Committee to support Mr Bamgbelu s allegations. The Committee found that Mr Bamgbelu s s were written with the BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -7/14-

8 4 (a) Proved 4 (b) Proved 4 (c) Not proved 5 (a) Proved 5 (b) Proved 5 (c) Proved 5 (d) Proved 6 Proved intention to be offensive, abusive and threatening. The s were consistent and repetitive, demonstrating that they were well considered and not an aberrant error. Mr C told the Committee that he found Mr Bamgbelu s comments rude, unpleasant, untrue, unjustified and generally offensive. The Committee found that part of the dated 23/01/14 sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr C contained comments intended to be abusive. The Committee found this charge proved as a matter of fact. Mr Bamgbelu repeated the abusive comments in s dated 24/01/14 and 26/01/2014 which he sent to Mr C. The Committee found that although Mr Bamgbelu s comments in his s dated 23/01/14 and 27/01/14 are offensive in nature, they were not directed at Mr C in comparison with the s referred to 4(a) and 4(b) above in which Mr Bamgbelu makes abusive comments directed at Mr C. Mrs D told the Committee that she found Mr Bamgbelu s comments unpleasant, offensive and a little frightening. The Committee found that the dated 31/03/14 at 09:39 sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mrs D contained extremely offensive comments aimed at Mrs D. Mrs D told the Committee that she found Mr Bamgbelu s comments personal, distressing, unpleasant, upsetting and anti-semitic. Mrs D informed the Committee of her ancestry and the effect of Mr Bamgbelu s comments on her. The Committee found that the dated 31/03/14 at 09:39 sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mrs D contained extremely offensive comments relating to nationality, race and ethnicity. The Committee found that the dated 31/03/14 at 09:39 sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mrs D contained offensive comments using sexual language. The Committee found this charge proved as a matter of fact. Mr Bamgbelu repeated his offensive and abusive comments in a subsequent dated 31/03/14 at 22:31 which he sent to Mrs D. Having found 4(a) and (b) and 5(a), (b), (c), and (d) proved, the Committee BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -8/14-

9 7 Proved 8 (a)(i),(ii),(iii) and 8(b)(i),(ii) found that from the style and content of Mr Bamgbelu s comments in the s above, they were intended to be abusive. The Committee accepted the written evidence from Mr F, a paralegal at Capsticks solicitors that at a hearing on 14 th February 2014, the IOC imposed condition 7 on Mr Bamgbelu s registration which stated that: in all future correspondence with the GDC and/or its legal advisers, Mr Bamgbelu must restrict himself to dealing with the specific issues and refrain from using emotional and abusive language. Having found proved that Mr Bamgbelu sent an abusive to Mrs D dated 31/03/14, it found that he contravened condition 7. Proved 9 (a) & (b) Proved 10 (a) Not proved 10 (b) Not proved 11 Proved We move to Stage Two. The Committee accepted the written evidence of Mr F that he sent an to Mr Bamgbelu on 14 th February 2014 at 19:52 in relation to his indemnity cover arrangements. Mr F stated that at an IOC review hearing on 10 th April 2014, Mr Bamgbelu provided the IOC with a version of the 14 th February which had words removed and other words underlined. The Committee found these proved as a matter of fact. These are merely statements of fact and no specific allegation is made. The Committee noted that the Council did not allege that Mr Bamgbelu was responsible for the alterations which are apparent on the documents. The Committee considered that there is a lack of clarity about how the alterations were approached before the Interim Orders Committee (IOC). This is not resolved by the transcript at pages 476 to 477 which were presented to this Committee. It is not clear how the IOC proceeded in the light of this conflict. Paragraph 10(a) involves a mental element of Mr Bamgbelu intending that the document should mislead the IOC. However applying the burden and standard of proof, the Committee is not able to find, to the civil standard, that the necessary mental element is made out. It follows from that conclusion that paragraph 10(b) is not proved by the same reasoning as to the uncertainty of Mr Bamgbelu s state of mind at the time. For the reasons set out above. The Committee accepted the written evidence of Mr E and Mr F that despite requests made by and on behalf of the GDC, Mr Bamgbelu has not agreed to undergo a health assessment / medical examination. On 17 December 2014 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -9/14-

10 Having made its findings on the facts, the Committee heard submissions on misconduct, impairment and sanction from Mr Singh. It received no specific representations from Mr Bamgbelu at this stage. The Committee heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Background This case concerns the contents of communications sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Mr A, Mrs B, Mr C and Mrs D between approximately 26 September 2013 and 10 April Mr A, Mr C and Mrs D, employees of the General Dental Council (GDC) and Mrs B, an employee of the Oxford Deanery corresponded with Mr Bamgbelu in relation to previous fitness to practise proceedings. Mr Bamgbelu s communications were via s and on occasion letters. The Committee found proved the majority of the facts alleged against Mr Bamgbelu. In particular it found proved that Mr Bamgbelu made abusive and offensive comments using sexual language in his communications with Mr A, Mrs B and Mrs D. In relation to Mr A, Mr Bamgbelu s comments were also threatening. Mr Bamgbelu made offensive comments referring to nationality, race or ethnicity in his communications with Mr A and Mrs D. Mr Bamgbelu made abusive comments in his communications with Mr C and those abusive comments were repeated in two further s. Mr Bamgbelu repeated his abusive and offensive comments to Mrs D in a subsequent . Mr Bamgbelu failed to cooperate with the GDC s investigation into his fitness to practise by not agreeing to undergo a health assessment despite requests by and on behalf of the GDC. Mr Bamgbelu breached an interim condition imposed on his registration on 14 April 2014 which stated that in all future correspondence with the GDC and/or its legal advisers, [Mr Bamgbelu] must restrict himself to dealing with the specific issues and refrain from using emotional or abusive language. At that interim orders hearing, Mr Bamgbelu provided the Committee with a copy of an sent to him by Capsticks Solicitors which was not a complete and accurate copy of the because words had been removed and other words underlined when they were not underlined in the original . Mr Bamgbelu told the interim orders Committee that he had not cut anything out of it and that that is the that was sent to me. The Committee found that the Council had not proved on the balance of probabilities that Mr Bamgbelu s actions were misleading or dishonest. Misconduct The Committee first considered whether its findings of fact amount to misconduct. Mr Singh, on behalf of the GDC provided the Committee with details of Mr Bamgbelu s previous fitness to practise history. This included determinations from previous Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) hearings between September 2009 and August Mr Singh drew the Committee s attention to the issues which were considered at these previous hearings which included aggressive, threatening, intimidating and insulting behaviour towards a patient, and making comments in a letter to Northamptonshire PCT which did not address the specific concerns raised but rather were dismissive, personally degrading and insulting. The Committee noted that Mr Bamgbelu admitted the allegation regarding the inappropriate communication which was found proved. Mr Singh invited the Committee to consider whether the previous PCC finding constitutes an aggravating feature as they relate to Mr Bamgbelu s manner of communication. He also invited the Committee to consider whether the attitudinal issues and the lack of insight highlighted by the previous PCC underpin the conduct in this case. BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -10/14-

11 The Committee found that Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour was persistent, relentless, threatening towards Mr A and deliberately designed to undermine persons carrying out their legitimate duties. Mr Bamgbelu s comments were unnecessarily offensive, personal and intended to abuse and cause offence. They were directed personally at GDC staff, their families and in relation to one member of staff, included anti-semitic comments. In relation to Mrs B, Mr Bamgbelu s comments were not only offensive and abusive but included accusations with no basis and his communications were copied to Mrs B s superiors thereby undermining her character with her employers. Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour demonstrates an intentional and persistent contempt for the rights and dignity of others that he comes in contact with in the course of his professional life and his professional duties as regards cooperating with GDC investigations. Mr Bamgbelu s responses were unprovoked in comparison to the correspondence sent by Mr A, Mrs B, Mr C and Mrs D. Despite written requests in the form of a letter from Mr A and an interim conditional order asking Mr Bamgbelu to desist from such behaviour, the extremely offensive and abusive comments persisted. The Committee was of the view that if Mr Bamgbelu had concerns which he wished to raise, he could have made his complaints without resorting to the language in his s. Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour breached the following GDC Guidance: Paragraph 6.3 of the Standards for Dental Professionals (May 2005) which states Maintain appropriate standards of personal behaviour in all walks of life so that patients have confidence in you and the public have confidence in the dental profession. Paragraph 1.3 of the Principles of Raising Concerns (May 2006) which states co-operate fully with any procedure for investigating concerns which applies to your work. The above GDC guidance applies to Mr Bamgbelu s communications sent in September The GDC published new guidance on 30 th September Standards for the Dental Team and Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour breached the following sections: You must: 9.1 Ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies patients trust in you and the public s trust in the dental profession; You must treat all team members, other colleagues and members of the public fairly, with dignity and in line with the law. 9.4 Co-operate with any relevant formal or informal inquiry and give full and truthful information; If you receive a letter from the GDC in connection with concerns about your fitness to practise, you must respond fully within the time specified in the letter. You should also seek advice from your indemnity provider or professional association You must co-operate with: o o o ; Other healthcare regulators; ; BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -11/14-

12 o o o o ; any other regulatory body; ; and any solicitor, barrister or advocate representing patients or colleagues. Taking all these factual matters into account including the previous history with the GDC, the Committee was of the view that Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour fell far short of that expected of a registered dental professional. It found that his conduct amounts to misconduct which is serious. Impairment The Committee next considered whether Mr Bamgbelu s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct. In reaching its decision, it exercised its own independent judgement. Mr Singh referred the Committee to the guidance set out in the case of Cohen v GMC in relation to consideration of current impairment. He invited the Committee to consider whether Mr Bamgbelu s conduct damages the reputation of the profession such that confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made - CHRE v NMC and Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). The Committee first considered whether Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour is remediable. It noted that there are no clinical concerns in this case but rather the findings made by the Committee are purely attitudinal in nature. The Committee was of the view that attitudinal issues may theoretically be remediable but they are more difficult to remedy than clinical deficiencies. There is no evidence before this Committee of any attempts by Mr Bamgbelu to remedy his behaviour. In fact, the Committee was presented with s sent by Mr Bamgbelu to Capsticks Solicitors dated 5 December 2014 in which he has copied and pasted comments from previous s which the Committee found to be abusive and offensive. The Committee noted that a previous PCC and an IOC had sought to address the nature and content of Mr Bamgbelu s communications by way of conditions on his registration with no success. This Committee found proved that Mr Bamgbelu breached one such condition. The Committee concluded that Mr Bamgbelu has not remedied his inappropriate behaviour. Mr Bamgbelu has continued to behave in the same manner demonstrating a complete lack of insight. There is no evidence before this Committee that Mr Bamgbelu has reflected on his behaviour or taken steps to address it. The Committee concluded that given the prolonged nature of Mr Bamgbelu s conduct, his lack of insight, and the absence of any remorse, remediation or reflection, such conduct is likely to be repeated. In relation to failing to co-operate with the GDC s investigation into his fitness to practise by agreeing to undergo a health assessment / medical examination, the Committee was of the view that such behaviour demonstrates a wilful disregard for the GDC as a regulator of the dental profession. By failing to agree to undergo a health assessment, Mr Bamgbelu has prevented the GDC from fulfilling its role of patient protection. The Committee was of the view that Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour has damaged the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in it. It was also of the view that the need to uphold proper professional standards and the public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances of this case. The Committee determined that Mr Bamgbelu s fitness to BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -12/14-

13 practise is impaired by reason of his misconduct in relation to the inappropriate communications and failing to agree to a health assessment. Sanction Having found Mr Bamgbelu s fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose upon his registration. It reminded itself that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have that effect. The Committee bore in mind the principle of proportionality and its duty to protect the public and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. It carefully considered the GDC s Guidance for the Professional Conduct Committee, November Mr Singh emphasised that the Committee must consider the available sanctions from the least serious. He submitted however that the appropriate and proportionate outcome in this case is erasure. Mr Singh referred the Committee to paragraph 40 of the GDC s Guidance for the Professional Conduct Committee, November 2009 (the Guidance). The Committee was of the view that to conclude this case with no further action would not reflect the gravity of Mr Bamgbelu s misconduct and current impairment. The Committee considered whether a reprimand would be sufficient to address Mr Bamgbelu s misconduct and current impairment. Given the nature and gravity of the behaviour and the Committee s conclusion that Mr Bamgbelu s conduct is likely to be repeated, a reprimand would be wholly disproportionate and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Committee then considered whether to impose conditions on Mr Bamgbelu s registration. Mr Bamgbelu s has had conditions imposed on his registration in the past, part of which was to deal with similar behaviour to that found proved by this Committee. Despite those conditions, Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour has continued in the same manner. This Committee has no evidence that his attitude has changed. The Committee was of the view that the issues in this case, unlike those before the previous PCC are purely attitudinal in nature and there are no conditions that could be imposed to address such concerns. Conditions requiring a registered dental professional to undergo a medical examination and to desist from writing s containing distasteful, abusive and offensive comments are not workable, practicable or enforceable. In addition, given the lack of insight by Mr Bamgbelu, the Committee is not confident that conditions would be complied with. The Committee then considered whether a period of suspension would adequately reflect the gravity of Mr Bamgbelu s misconduct. The Committee considers that Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour has damaged public confidence in dental professionals such that removal of his professional status is the appropriate outcome in this case. There is no evidence of remediation or insight before this Committee. As such the Committee considered that a period of suspension is not appropriate or proportionate to address Mr Bamgbelu s misconduct and current impairment. The Committee took account of the 2009 Guidance particularly paragraph 40 (h) which states: In a small number of cases, a registrant s behaviour or the attitudes demonstrated can identify him or her as being unfit to be a member of a caring and responsible profession. This problem could be evidenced by serious or persistent contempt for the safety, rights or dignity of others BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -13/14-

14 Mr Bamgbelu s inappropriate communications were persistent, offensive, disproportionate to the requests made of him and on occasion contained extreme graphic and sexual language. The Committee considered them to be beyond what is reasonably expected in correspondence to a regulator from a registered dental professional. Mr Bamgbelu has displayed contempt for the regulatory process which is designed to keep patients safe. He has also demonstrated a complete lack of insight into his behaviour. The Committee balanced Mr Bamgbelu s right to continue to practice in his chosen profession with the least restriction against the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards. It concluded that Mr Bamgbelu s behaviour was such that erasure from the Dentists Register is the appropriate outcome. As a consequence, the Committee has determined to direct that Mr Bamgbelu s name should be erased from the Dentists Register pursuant to section 27B(6)(a) of the Dentists Act 1984, as amended. The Committee will now invite submissions on whether an immediate order should be imposed in this case. The Committee considered the submissions made by Mr Singh on behalf of the GDC in relation to whether an order for immediate suspension. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Given the Committee s findings regarding Mr Bamgbelu s attitudinal failings, his lack of insight, the risk of repetition identified and the damage that his behaviour has had on the reputation of the profession, the Committee has determined that an immediate order for the suspension of Mr Bamgbelu s registration is otherwise in the wider public interest. The effect of the foregoing direction and this decision is that Mr Bamgbelu s registration will be suspended forthwith and unless he exercises his right to appeal, the substantive direction for erasure will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed served on him. Should Mr Bamgbelu exercise his right to appeal, this order for immediate suspension may remain in place pending the resolution of any appeal proceedings. The interim order of suspension imposed on Mr Bamgbelu s registration is revoked. That concludes the case. BAMGBELU, A O Professional Conduct Committee Oct-Dec 2014 Page -14/14-