HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

Transcription

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC RAMSAY, Laura Jo Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with immediate suspension Laura Jo RAMSAY, a dental nurse, Qual- National Certificate NEBDN 2009, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 19 September 2017 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (as amended on 19 September 2017) That being registered as a dental care professional Laura Jo Ramsay's (175661) fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction and/or misconduct. In that: 1. On 22 April 2013, you were convicted at Buckinghamshire Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle, namely X559GPP, on a restricted road, namely London Road, Aston Clinton, at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour contrary to sections 81 (1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act On 4 April 2016, you were convicted at Buckinghamshire Magistrates Court of: a. when suspected of having driven a vehicle and having been required to provide a specimen of blood for a laboratory test pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether you have committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A thereof, failed without reasonable excuse to do so contrary to section 7 (6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act b. having in your possession a quantity of cocaine a controlled drug of class A in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act You failed to immediately inform the General Dental Council (GDC) of the convictions described in paragraphs 2(a) and/or 2(b) above. 4. Between 11 May 2016 and until at least 1 August 2016, you failed to cooperate with a fitness to practise investigation conducted by the GDC. 5. Your conduct in relation to allegation 3 was: a. Misleading; b. Dishonest in that you knew you were required to inform the GDC that you were subject to criminal proceedings. RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -1/12-

2 Ms Ramsay was not present and was not represented. On 20 September 2017 the Chairman announced the findings of fact to the Counsel for the GDC: Miss Ramsay was not present nor represented at this Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) hearing of her case. Ms Headley represented the General Dental Council (GDC). In Miss Ramsay s absence, the Committee first considered whether the GDC had complied with serving the Notice of Hearing on Miss Ramsay in accordance with Rules 13 and 65 of the GDC (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (the Rules). The Committee has seen a copy of the Notification of Hearing letter dated 15 August 2017 which was sent from the GDC to Miss Ramsay s registered address by special delivery and by first class post. The letter sets out the date, time and location of today s hearing, as well as the particularised facts of the charge, in compliance with Rule 13. The Royal Mail track and trace receipt confirms that the item was delivered to Miss Ramsay s registered address on 16 August 2017, which the Committee notes, is more than 28 days in advance of today s hearing. Further, the Committee has seen a copy of an dated 15 August 2017 from the GDC to Miss Ramsay s address, which refers her to the Notification of Hearing, commencing on 19 September Having regard to all of these documents, the Committee is satisfied that the GDC has taken all reasonable steps to send the Notification of Hearing letter to Miss Ramsay in accordance with Rules 13 and 65. Proceeding in absence of Miss Ramsay The Committee then went on to consider whether to hear this case in the absence of Miss Ramsay in accordance with Rule 54. Ms Headley, on behalf of the GDC, invited the Committee to do so on the basis that Miss Ramsay, having been served with the Notification of Hearing letter in accordance with the Rules, had chosen not to attend. Ms Headley cited relevant case law on the matter of proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. She also drew the Committee s attention to a telephone attendance note dated 15 August 2017 regarding today s hearing, which records that Miss Ramsay did not wish to attend the hearing but that she may put something in writing. No response had been received from Miss Ramsay. The Committee has considered carefully the submissions made by Ms Headley. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee has borne in mind that the discretion to proceed in the absence of the respondent must be exercised with the utmost care and caution and that it must have in mind the need for fairness to Miss Ramsay as well as to the GDC. The Committee notes the attempts made by the GDC to secure Miss Ramsay s engagement in these proceedings, and the absence of any response from her. This includes her failure to respond to the Notification of Hearing letter dated 15 August 2017, despite being asked to notify the GDC by 4 September 2017 whether she would be attending the hearing and/or whether she will be represented. The Committee has also had regard to the telephone attendance note dated 15 August 2017 which states that Miss Ramsay did not wish to attend the hearing. She has not sought an adjournment of today s hearing and there is nothing before the Committee to suggest that Miss Ramsay would attend on a future occasion, were it to adjourn. The Committee has also had regard to the serious nature of the allegations against Miss Ramsay and the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case. It is aware that there is a GDC witness who is available to give evidence. Having regard to all these factors, the Committee has decided that it is fair and appropriate to proceed in the absence of Miss Ramsay in accordance with Rule 54. RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -2/12-

3 Rule 25(2) application Thereafter, Ms Headley made an application under Rule 25(2) for this Committee to consider additional allegations before this Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), together with the allegations (1 to 4) set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 15 August The additional allegations are as follows: 5. Your conduct in relation to allegation 3 was: a. Misleading; b. Dishonest in that you knew you were required to inform the GDC that you were subject to criminal proceedings. The GDC s position is that these additional allegations are of a similar kind and are founded on the same alleged facts as those set out at allegations 2 and 3 and thus falls within the provisions of Rule 25. Ms Headley referred to the GDC s letter dated 31 May 2017 entitled Disclosure of the Council s case which advises Miss Ramsay of these new allegations, the details of which are set out in the letter. The letter states that the GDC is intending to apply to this PCC for these additional allegations to be considered at this hearing at the same time as the original allegations, and invited Miss Ramsay to make written representations on the new allegations within 28 days of the date of the letter. To date, Miss Ramsay had not responded to that letter. The Committee has considered the submissions made by Ms Headley. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In the Committee s judgement, the additional allegations fall within the provisions of Rule 25(2) and accordingly, it has acceded to Ms Headley s application. The Committee will therefore consider allegations 5(a) and 5(b) together with allegations 1 to 4 as set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 15 August The GDC s case against Miss Ramsay The GDC alleges that Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her convictions and/or misconduct. The facts of the case are that on 22 April 2013 Miss Ramsay was convicted at Buckinghamshire Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle, namely X559GPP, on a restricted road, namely London Road, Aston Clinton, at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour contrary to sections 81 (1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (charge 1). On 4 April 2016 Miss Ramsay was convicted at Buckinghamshire Magistrates Court of the following charges: when suspected of having driven a vehicle and having been required to provide a specimen of blood for a laboratory test pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A thereof, she failed without reasonable excuse to do so contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (charge 2(a)). On that same day Miss Ramsay was also convicted of having in her possession a quantity of cocaine a controlled drug of class A in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (charge 2(b)). The GDC alleges that Miss Ramsay failed to immediately inform the GDC of the convictions at 2(a) and 2(b) above (charge 3) and that between 11 May 2016 and until at least 1 August 2016, she failed to co-operate with a fitness to practice investigation conducted by the GDC RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -3/12-

4 (charge 4). Finally, the GDC alleges that Miss Ramsay s conduct in relation to charge 3 was misleading (charge 5(a)) and dishonest (charge 5(b)) in that she knew she was required to inform the GDC that she was subject to criminal proceedings. After the GDC had closed its case and during the course of its deliberations late on the morning of 19 September 2017, the Committee was informed via the Witness Support Officer that Miss Ramsay had telephoned her to find if she could make written submissions before the Committee. Miss Ramsay was then contacted by the Committee Secretary by telephone. Miss Ramsay was then advised via telephone by the Legal Adviser, in the presence of Ms Headley, that although the Committee had commenced consideration of the case in camera, she could still make submissions to the Committee at this stage of these proceedings, should she choose to do so. Miss Ramsay was also advised that the Committee had agreed to the GDC s application under Rule 25(2) to consider the additional charges of 5(a) and 5(b), which included an allegation of dishonesty (5(b). Miss Ramsay was advised that this was a serious allegation. She was given advice as to the options available to her, including her providing the Committee with written submissions and/or attending the hearing. It was explained to her that she could make a submission orally and that this would mean that she would not be on oath and the GDC could not question her, although the Committee could ask questions to clarify her submissions. After considering the options, Miss Ramsay indicated that she wished to give written submissions only and that she did not wish to answer questions. She was offered time to enable her to prepare revised submissions, which would take into account the additional charges of 5(a) and 5(b). She was also advised that should the Committee reach findings against her and progress to the stages of misconduct and impairment, then her written submissions would be before the Committee at that stage as well. She was also reminded of the sanctions available to the Committee. Miss Ramsay was also given the option of participating at the hearing remotely, either by Skype or telephone and it was explained to her that should she decide not to address the Committee in person, her statement may be given less weight. Miss Ramsay decided to submit a statement to the Committee. The Committee has considered the submissions made by Ms Headley and the written representations made by Miss Ramsay. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee 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. Miss Ramsay need not prove anything. In respect of charge 5(b), that Miss Ramsay s conduct was dishonest, the Committee has been advised of the two-stage test (firstly, the objective test and if satisfied of that, then secondly, the subjective test) it must apply, as set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689. This was as follows: First, whether, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest members of the public, what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. Second, if it was dishonest by those standards, whether the Registrant herself must have realised that what she was doing was by those standards dishonest. The Committee has considered all the evidence before it, as contained in the GDC s hearing bundle. This includes the signed witness statements of the following people: JE (a Manager at the Dental Practice (the Practice) where Miss Ramsay worked as a dental care RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -4/12-

5 professional), LB (a GDC employee who works in the Casework Department), CU (a GDC employee who works in the In-House Legal Team) and RT (a GDC employee who works in the Registration Dental Care Practitioners Casework Team). The Committee also received oral evidence by telephone from CU. Furthermore, the bundle contained the certified memoranda of convictions. The Committee notes that by letter dated 31 May 2017, which was sent by special delivery to Miss Ramsay s registered address, the GDC served on her the documents it intended to rely on in advance of the hearing. Furthermore, in that letter, Miss Ramsay was advised to forward to the GDC any documents she wished to rely upon by 31 August Miss Ramsay had not sought to challenge the contents of those documents. The Committee also considered Miss Ramsay s written submissions received on 19 September I will now announce the Committee s findings as follows: 1. Found proved The Committee has seen a copy of the certificate of conviction, which refers to the offence set out at charge 1 and confirms the date of conviction as being 22 April In accordance with Rule 57(5), the Committee has accepted this certificate as conclusive proof of Miss Ramsay s conviction and the findings of fact upon which the conviction was based. 2. a. Found proved The Committee has seen a copy of the certificate of conviction, which refers to the offence set out at charge 2(a) and confirms the date of conviction as being 4 April In accordance with Rule 57(5), the Committee has accepted this certificate as conclusive proof of Miss Ramsay s conviction and the findings of fact upon which the conviction was based. 2. b. Found proved The Committee has seen a copy of the certificate of conviction, which refers to the offence set out at charge 2(b) and confirms the date of conviction as being 4 April In accordance with Rule 57(5), the Committee has accepted this certificate as conclusive proof of Miss Ramsay s conviction and the findings of fact upon which the conviction was based. 3. Found proved The Committee has had regard to the evidence of JE as set out in her signed statement dated 7 April 2017 in which she sets out events following receipt of an article from the local newspaper which referred to Miss Ramsay s convictions in relation to charge 2. JE refers to a disciplinary meeting that took place on 6 May 2016 with Miss Ramsay and herself, where Miss Ramsay admitted that the information contained in the local newspaper was correct. Miss Ramsay also said that she had failed to provide a blood sample to the Police when required to do so and that she had been in possession of cocaine at the relevant time. JE states that she had asked Miss Ramsay if she had reported the matter to the GDC, to which she replied that she had not. JE further states that she asked Miss Ramsay if she was aware that she should tell the GDC about the convictions against her, to which Miss Ramsay replied that she was not. JE s evidence was that Miss Ramsay had stated that she had assumed that the police would inform RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -5/12-

6 the GDC about the convictions. JE goes on to state: I then advised the Registrant that [it] was her obligation to inform the GDC of such convictions, and that I had informed the GDC myself about this matter. I informed the GDC about the matter on 21 April Miss Ramsay s explanation in her written submissions dated 19 September 2017 is that at the time of the convictions, she was suffering from stress and other health problems and that she tried hard not to let it impact on her professionalism at work. However, the Committee notes that Miss Ramsay s contention that she was suffering from health problems at the time of the events in question is not borne out by the documents before it. It notes that she failed to respond to the GDC s request for medical information in its letter dated 3 June 2016 and further, it is clear from the evidence of JE that Miss Ramsay was working at the Practice at the time of the events in question. On 16 February 2017 a letter was sent to Miss Ramsay, inviting her to undergo medical examination by a GDC appointed medical practitioner. This letter was sent by special delivery to Miss Ramsay but the GDC received no response. Miss Ramsay also explained in her statement dated 19 September 2017 that she believed that the police would inform the GDC of her conviction, the same assertion made to JE at their disciplinary meeting on 6 May However, the Committee has accepted JE s evidence that she informed Miss Ramsay that it was her own responsibility to inform the GDC of her convictions and there is no evidence that she did so, either shortly after that meeting, or thereafter. The Committee therefore rejected Miss Ramsay s explanation on this matter. RT, in her signed witness statement dated 19 May 2017, provides information as to the GDC s Standards for the Dental Team (the Standards) which was introduced on 30 September The document sets out the standards of conduct, performance and ethics that govern dental professionals. Standard 9.3 of the Standards states You must inform the GDC if you are subject to criminal proceedings or a regulatory finding is made against you anywhere in the world. RT also referred to a document by the GDC called Guidance on reporting criminal proceedings which came into force on 30 September The guidance makes it clear that the Registrant must inform the GDC if anywhere in the world he/she is charged with a criminal offence; are found guilty of a criminal offence... RT advised that Miss Ramsay was registered with the GDC at the time when these standards came into force, having been registered with the GDC since 28 May CU, in his first witness statement dated 8 May 2017, sets out the steps he has taken to contact Miss Ramsay during the period February 2017 to 11 April 2017 either by letter, telephone or , concerning these proceedings. In CU s second witness statement dated 31 May 2017 he sets out the contact he tried to make with Miss Ramsay up to 8 May His evidence was that despite each of his attempts to communicate with Miss Ramsay, he has received no response from her. The Committee considers that under Standard 9.3, Miss Ramsay had a duty to notify the GDC of her convictions. It accepts the evidence of JE that she had reminded Miss Ramsay of this duty at the meeting that took place on 6 May Further, there is no evidence that Miss Ramsay informed the RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -6/12-

7 GDC immediately, or indeed at any point, of her convictions of 4 April It accepted the oral evidence of CU that he had carried out a search through Miss Ramsay s records with the GDC from 2013 to date and he could find nothing to show that she had contacted the GDC regarding her convictions of 4 April Found proved LB, in her witness statement dated 11 April 2017, sets outs the dates of the letters/ s that had been sent from Capsticks (the GDC s external legal providers) to Miss Ramsay by special delivery concerning these proceedings, as well as Capsticks telephone calls to Miss Ramsay from 11 May 2016 to 2 December LB also set out the items of correspondence that were sent from the GDC to Miss Ramsay between 12 January 2017 and 2 February LB confirmed that neither Capsticks nor she herself had received any response from Miss Ramsay in relation to these matters. Further, the Committee has had regard to the evidence of CU, as set out at charge 3 above, of the steps he had taken to contact Miss Ramsay between the period 16 February 2017 until August 2017 by means of 3 letters, 5 s and 6 telephone calls. His evidence was that Miss Ramsay had not responded to any of those communications. Furthermore, in CU s supplemental witness statement dated 31 May 2017, he stated that after making his initial witness statement he wrote to Miss Ramsay again on 8 May He stated that as at the date of that second statement he had not received a response from Miss Ramsay. The Committee has accepted the evidence of LB and CU. It also notes that the first reference to any contact from Miss Ramsay to the GDC is in the form of a telephone note dated 15 August concerning a telephone conversation between CU and Miss Ramsay. That note records that Miss Ramsay had called to note that she is no longer working as a dental nurse. 5. a. Found proved The GDC was not aware of the fact that Miss Ramsay had two criminal convictions against her on 4 April Miss Ramsay was under a professional obligation to notify the GDC of these matters in accordance with its Standards but she did not so. In the Committee s view, Miss Ramsay s failure to notify the GDC of her convictions was misleading because it was therefore not aware of those convictions until JE notified the GDC on 21 April 2016, and thus it was not in a position to decide whether the convictions impacted on her ability to practise safely and thus what course of action, if any, it should take in relation to her fitness to practise. 5. b. Found proved The Committee was not persuaded by Miss Ramsay s assertion that she was not aware that she had a professional obligation to inform the GDC of her convictions at the time, as it was clear from the evidence of JE that on 6 May 2016 she had advised Miss Ramsay of the GDC requirement that it was for Miss Ramsay to notify the GDC. In the Committee s view, Miss Ramsay knowingly misrepresented herself and by failing to disclose her convictions RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -7/12-

8 We move to Stage Two. she gave the impression to the GDC that she had not been subject to criminal proceedings when this was not the case. The Committee is satisfied that members of the public would regard such conduct as dishonest and that Miss Ramsay would have known that such conduct would be considered to be dishonest by those standards. On 20 September 2017 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Ms Headley, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), made submissions in accordance with Rule 20(1)(a) of the Fitness to Practise Rules She invited the Committee to conclude that Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her convictions and her misconduct. She submitted that the appropriate sanction in this case is that of erasure. During the course of her submissions, Ms Headley referred the Committee to relevant sections of the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (October 2016). She confirmed that Miss Ramsay has no fitness to practise history. The convictions The Committee first considered whether Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her convictions. In doing so, it exercised its independent judgement. Throughout its deliberations, the Committee has borne in mind that its primary duty is to protect the public interest, which includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Miss Ramsay was convicted at Buckinghamshire Magistrates Court for different offences on 22 April 2013 and 4 April 2016 respectively. On 22 April 2013, Miss Ramsay was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on 18 October 2012 at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour contrary to sections 81 (1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act Her guilty plea was taken into account when imposing sentence and she was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 56 days. On 7 March 2016 at Aylesbury police custody, when suspected of having driven a vehicle and having been required to provide a specimen of blood for a laboratory test pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether Miss Ramsay had committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A thereof, she failed without reasonable excuse to do so. This was contrary to section 7 (6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act On that same date, also at Aylesbury police custody, she was found to have in her possession a quantity of cocaine a controlled drug of class A, which was in contravention of section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and contrary to section 5(2) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act Miss Ramsay pleaded guilty to these offences and was convicted of both on 4 April She was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months, with the caveat that the disqualification would be reduced by 3 months if, by 3 November 2016, she satisfactorily completed a course approved by the Secretary of State. The Committee considers that Miss Ramsay s conviction in 2013 for speeding is serious and could have placed other members of the public at risk. This was compounded by her two RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -8/12-

9 convictions in April 2016 in relation to her failure to co-operate with the police on 7 March 2016 as part of its investigation into another driving matter and her being in possession of a class A drug. The Committee notes from Miss Ramsay s statement dated 19 September 2017 that she considered that her conviction on 22 April 2013 was of no relevance with regard to her role as a Dental Care Professional. In respect of her convictions of 4 April 2016, Miss Ramsay now states that at the time of the events in question she was suffering from stress and poor health and was seeing her GP. However, she has produced no medical evidence. She acknowledged that these matters did not excuse her behaviour, but asked the Committee to take it into account in considering why she did not respond to the GDC in the months following her conviction. The Committee has had regard to the following standards of GDC s Standards for Dental Professionals (September 2013) which states: Standard 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity Standard You must make sure that you do not bring the profession into disrepute. Standard 9.1 You must 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. Miss Ramsay breached these standards. She has provided no satisfactory explanation of the events concerning her convictions in a written statement submitted on the first day of the hearing. In that statement, she sought to blame her conduct on health concerns, which the Committee rejected. Further, there is no evidence of any remorse, insight or steps taken by Miss Ramsay to address her offending behaviour since the events in question. In the absence of such evidence, the Committee cannot be satisfied that she has understood the seriousness of her offending behaviour and the consequences of it on the reputation of the Dental Care Profession. The Committee considers that each of the convictions is serious in its own right. The situation is aggravated by the fact that following her conviction in April 2013, three years later she was convicted of two other matters. In the light of the serious nature of the three convictions, and having regard to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, the Committee has determined that Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her convictions. Misconduct Turning to other matters, the Committee has found that Miss Ramsay failed to immediately inform the GDC of the two convictions dated 4 April The Committee has found that Miss Ramsay s conduct in this regard was misleading and dishonest in that she knew at the disciplinary meeting held on 6 May 2016 that she was required to inform the GDC that she was subject to criminal proceedings but she chose not to do so. The Committee takes a serious view of Miss Ramsay s dishonest conduct she knowingly misrepresented herself to the GDC by failing to disclose her two convictions of RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -9/12-

10 The Committee has also found that between 11 May 2016 until at least 1 August 2016 Miss Ramsay failed to co-operate with the GDC in relation to its fitness to practise investigation against her. Indeed, after those dates, Miss Ramsay continued to fail to co-operate with the GDC until yesterday, 19 September 2017, when she provided the Committee with a written statement. The Committee takes a serious view of Miss Ramsay s complete failure to engage with her regulator over a very sustained period of time. The Committee has had regard to the following standards of GDC s Standards for Dental Professionals (September 2013) which states: Standard 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity Standard 1.9 You must find out about laws and regulations that affect your work and follow them Standard 9.1 You must 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. Standard 9.3 You must inform the GDC if you are subject to criminal proceedings or a regulatory finding is made against you anywhere in the world. Standard 9.4 You must co-operate with any relevant formal or informal inquiry and give full and truthful information. The Committee considers that Miss Ramsay has breached these standards. The Committee is satisfied that its findings of fact demonstrate conduct unbecoming of a registered dental professional which would be viewed as deplorable by fellow professionals. The Committee has concluded that the facts found proved amount to misconduct. The Committee then went on to consider whether Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. It takes a serious view of each of the findings against her, including a finding of dishonesty. It is clear from Miss Ramsay s written statement to the Committee that she attaches no importance to her professional obligations, such as the need to declare to her regulator that she was subject to criminal proceedings and her co-operation in its investigations into her fitness to practise. Despite numerous attempts to contact her by several members of GDC staff, she chose not to engage. She has sought to excuse her behaviour by attributing it to health concerns but without providing any evidence in support of that contention. Although she has expressed her apologies for not getting in contact with the GDC sooner (this being on the first day of her hearing after the GDC had closed its case on the facts) she has provided no explanation as to why she did not engage with the GDC over a sustained period of time. The Committee considers that Miss Ramsay s written statement raises real concerns about her insight. Given her lack of insight and the lack of any evidence of remediation or reflection on her part, the Committee considers that the risk of repetition remains. RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -10/12-

11 Miss Ramsay has given the Committee no explanation regarding her possession of the Class A drug or why she refused to provide a blood sample. The Committee therefore finds that she remains a risk to the public and that her fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Committee has further considered the wider public interest, including the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Committee has found that Miss Ramsay has been dishonest to her regulator, which is serious and been compounded by her failure to co-operate with it for over a year. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that public confidence would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Accordingly, the Committee has determined that Miss Ramsay s fitness to practise is also currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. Sanction The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on Miss Ramsay 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. It has taken into account the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees, including Indicative Sanctions Guidance (October 2016). The Committee has applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Miss Ramsay s own interests. The Committee has had regard to the mitigating and aggravating features of this case. It has borne in mind that Miss Ramsay has no previous fitness to practise history and that she entered a guilty plea for the offences for which she was convicted in April 2013 and April 2016 respectively. She has also apologised for some of her failures. The aggravating features of this case include the serious nature of the three convictions, involving traffic offences and the possession of a Class A drug, as well as a finding of dishonesty against her. The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least serious. In view of the gravity of Miss Ramsay s convictions, and the finding against her relating to her probity, 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 appropriate, given the serious natures of the convictions and the proven dishonesty in this case. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it would be impossible to formulate workable conditions to address Miss Ramsay s particular failings of non-co-operation and dishonesty which do not relate to her dental practice. The Committee went on to consider whether to suspend Miss Ramsay s registration. It had regard to the gravity of the criminal behaviour which resulted in convictions in 2013 and 2016 and it also had regard to Miss Ramsay s dishonest conduct and her failure to engage with the GDC. The Committee considers that the findings against her seriously call into question her professional integrity and judgement and whether she has any real understanding as to her obligations as a registered Dental Care Professional. There is no evidence before the Committee of any real remorse or insight from Miss Ramsay in respect of her conduct. Taking all these factors into account, 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 and criminal behaviour, resulting in three separate convictions, are unacceptable and highly damaging to a registrant s fitness to RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -11/12-

12 practise and to public confidence in dental professionals. The Committee is satisfied that the matters found proved against Miss Ramsay are so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the 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 Miss Ramsay s own interests. In her statement before the Committee Miss Ramsay said that she is no longer working as a Dental Care Professional and currently has no intentions of doing so in the future. In the light of the serious nature of the findings against her, the Committee considers that the public interest clearly outweighs Miss Ramsay s own interests in this matter. It therefore directs that Miss Ramsay s name be erased from the Dental Care Professionals Register. The Committee now invites submissions as to whether Miss Ramsay s registration should be suspended immediately, pending the taking effect of its substantive direction of erasure. Decision on immediate order Having directed that Miss Ramsay s name be erased from the Dental Care Professionals Register, the Committee has considered whether to make an order for immediate suspension of her registration. Ms Headley, on behalf of the GDC, has submitted that such an order is necessary for the protection of the public and is in the public interest, given the serious nature of the Committee s findings. She advised that the substantive direction of erasure will not take effect until after the appeal period has concluded, which is 28 days from the date when the notice of this decision is deemed to have been served on Miss Ramsay, or if an appeal is lodged, until after the disposal of the appeal. Ms Headley confirmed that Miss Ramsay is not currently subject to an interim order. The Committee has made serious findings against Miss Ramsay and is satisfied, for the reasons set out in its previous determination, that it would be inconsistent to allow her the opportunity to continue to practise during the intervening appeal period and the taking effect of the substantive direction of erasure. In accordance with Section 36U of the Dentists Act 1984 (as amended) the Committee has determined that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is in the public interest that Miss Ramsay s registration be suspended forthwith and therefore makes that direction accordingly. The effect of the foregoing direction and this order is that Miss Ramsay s registration will be suspended forthwith. Unless Miss Ramsay 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 Miss Ramsay exercise her right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal proceedings. That concludes the case for today. RAMSAY, L J Professional Conduct Committee September 2017 Page -12/12-