2. Your conduct in relation to charge 1a took place at Grosvenor Dental Practice where you worked as a dentist.

Transcription

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC AGHAEI, Khosrow Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2014 Outcome: Fitness to Practise is impaired; erasure with an immediate suspension order Khosrow AGHAEI, a dentist, Tandläkare Karolinska 1993, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 4 December 2014 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (as amended at 4c by the Committee on 4 December 2014) That, being a registered dentist: 1. On 19 May 2014 you were convicted at Mold Crown Court of: a. Voyeurism (recording a person doing a private act) pursuant to Section 67(3) Sexual Offences Act 2003; b. Possession of an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child pursuant to Section 1(1)c Protection of Children Act 1978; c. Possession of an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child pursuant to Section 1(1)c Protection of Children Act 1978; and, d. Possession of extreme pornographic images an act which threatens a person s life pursuant to Section 63(1) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act Your conduct in relation to charge 1a took place at Grosvenor Dental Practice where you worked as a dentist. 3. The images detailed at charges 1b, 1c and 1d were stored on a computer at the Grosvenor Dental Practice where you worked as a dentist. 4. During a Police interview at St Asaph on 19 March 2012 you stated that: a. You had used a spy camera to try and catch people who were stealing instruments; b. You could never get the spy camera to work; c. Two members of staff who had seen an indecent image of a child on your surgery computer were lying and were liars; and, d. The Police would find some soft pornography on the surgery computer but nothing like the images detailed at charges 1b, 1c and 1d. 5. By virtue of your subsequent plea of guilty at Mold Crown Court to all criminal charges (as outlined at charge 1), the statements you made at charge 4 were: a. Misleading; and/or b. Deliberately misleading; and/or c. Dishonest. 6. Your conduct in respect of charges 1-5 did not; AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -1/9-

2 a. Justify the trust that your patients, the public and your colleagues placed in you; and/or b. Maintain appropriate standards of professional behaviour. And that by reason of the facts alleged your fitness to practise as a dentist is impaired by reason of your conviction and/or misconduct. Mr Aghaei was not present and was not represented. On 4 December 2014 the Chairman announced the findings of fact to the Counsel for the GDC: Ms French You presented the case for the General Dental Council (GDC) at today s hearing. Mr Aghaei was not present at the hearing, and was not represented in his absence. Service You submitted that service had been properly effected in accordance with the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2006 ( the Rules ). You stated that in accordance with Rule 13 a notice of hearing was sent to the address that Mr Aghaei has registered with the GDC which set out the date, time and location of today s hearing. You stated that the notice dated 14 October 2014 was sent in accordance with Rule 65 of the Rules, having been posted to Mr Aghaei s registered address using the Royal Mail s Recorded Delivery service. You stated that, although it does not affect the GDC s compliance with the rules of service, the Royal Mail had returned the notice to the GDC s offices with the information that Mr Aghaei had gone away from his registered address. You then outlined the further attempt that the GDC had made to notify Mr Aghaei of today s hearing. You stated that the GDC had been provided with an alternative address for him by NHS Wales and North Wales Police which is understood to be his residential address. You stated that a further notice of hearing was sent to Mr Aghaei at that alternative address on 14 October 2014, and that the notice had been signed for by an individual of the surname Aghaei, on the morning of the following day, namely 15 October The Committee accepted the advice given by the Legal Advisor. Having regard to the evidence put before it the Committee is satisfied that service has been properly effected in accordance with the Rules. Proceeding in absence The Committee then went on to consider whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of Mr Aghaei in accordance with Rule 54 of the Rules. You invited the Committee to do so on the basis that the GDC had made all reasonable efforts to notify Mr Aghaei of today s proceedings. You further stated that the matters to which today s hearing pertains have been ongoing since the time of his arrest in March 2012, and that it was therefore clear that Mr Aghaei is aware of these ongoing proceedings. You also stated that this highlights the need to expedite these matters to a conclusion today. You stated that the GDC has established that Mr Aghaei was expected to have been released from prison at around the end of October On behalf of the GDC you submitted that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure Mr Aghaei s attendance at a hearing, as he has hitherto had very little contact with the GDC in AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -2/9-

3 relation to these matters. You did however state that Mr Aghaei wrote to the GDC in July 2014 in which he demonstrated his awareness of the issues with which the Committee is presently concerned. You did not present a copy of this correspondence as you had determined with the Legal Advisor that it is not relevant or admissible at this stage. You submitted that Mr Aghaei has voluntarily absented himself from today s hearing, and that there is a strong public interest and public protection basis on which to proceed with today s hearing as scheduled. The Committee accepted the advice provided by the Legal Advisor. The Committee has had regard to the fact that, save for Mr Aghaei s one letter to the GDC in July 2014, he has not engaged in these proceedings. In these circumstances the Committee is satisfied that he has voluntarily absented himself. It considers that an adjournment would serve no purpose as it would be unlikely to secure Mr Aghaei s attendance. Background to the case and GDC s submissions on the facts You provided background information on the registrant and on the offences that subsequently gave rise to his conviction. Mr Aghaei was working at a two-surgery dental practice in Conwy, Wales, at the time of the offences. His name also appeared on the relevant NHS Dental Performers List at the material times. You stated that in or around February 2012 a dental therapist and a dental nurse at the practice had concerns about a set of keys which they had found at the practice, as there appeared to be a camera contained within a key fob on the keychain. It was alleged that Mr Aghaei had used the camera to spy on others at work for the purposes of his own sexual gratification. The members of staff in question saw indecent photographs or pseudophotographs on a computer in the practice. Officers from North Wales Police attended at the practice and arrested Mr Aghaei on 19 March The police seized computer equipment, storage devices and the spy camera in question. They also attended at his home address as part of their enquiries. Mr Aghaei was then conveyed to St. Asaph Police station and was interviewed under caution on two separate occasions later that same day. He was then bailed pending further enquiries. Mr Aghaei was reinterviewed by the police in December He subsequently at Mold Crown Court pleaded guilty to the four offences set out in head of charge 1. You submitted that there is sufficient evidence contained in the bundle for the Committee to find that Mr Aghaei has been convicted of four offences of a serious sexual nature, and that the further allegations relating to his conduct which relate to that conviction could also be found proven. The Legal Advisor provided advice to the Committee in relation to the task of making findings of fact. In particular he stated to the Committee that: In determining whether the Council has proved that Mr Aghaei was acting dishonestly, you must first of all decide whether you are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that on the facts you have found proved, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest dental practitioners, what he did was dishonest. If you conclude that it was not dishonest by those standards that is the end of the matter. If, on a balance of probabilities, you conclude AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -3/9-

4 that it was dishonest then you must go on to consider whether you believe that Mr Aghaei himself must have realised, at the time of the relevant conduct, that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. The Legal Advisor also advised the Committee that Mr Aghaei has no other fitness to practise history save for the matters being considered today. Committee s findings of facts The Committee has taken into account all the evidence presented to it. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with the advice provided by the Legal Advisor it has considered each head of charge separately although in respect of heads of charge 1, 4, 5 and 6 the findings will be announced collectively. I will now announce the Committee s findings in relation to each head of charge: 1a 1b 1c 1d In respect of head of charge 1 the Committee had regard to Rule 57 (5) of the Rules and determined that the Certificate of Conviction provides conclusive proof of both the fact of the conviction and also of the offences which gave rise to that conviction. The Committee notes that the facts upon which the conviction was based have been found proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is an evidential standard that is higher than that employed by this Committee for the purpose of its proceedings. The Committee accepted that it cannot go behind the facts on which that conviction was made. It notes that Mr Aghaei pleaded guilty to each of these offences and did not appeal against the conviction or the sentence. 2 3 Not proved In relation to head of charge 2 the Committee paid careful attention to the documentary evidence placed before it, including a report made by NHS Wales dated 26 March 2012, the case summary prepared by North Wales Police and the transcript of the police interview on 19 March The Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence of voyeurism for which Mr Aghaei was convicted had taken place at the practice at which he worked. In respect of head of charge 3 the evidence before the Committee was that his house as well as his practice had been searched and computer equipment and storage devices had been seized. The Committee was not satisfied that there was evidence to establish that on the balance of probabilities the images which Mr Aghaei had been convicted of possessing had been stored on a computer in the practice rather than elsewhere. The Committee was not able to identify where the images referred to in Mr AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -4/9-

5 4a 4b 4c Aghaei s conviction had been stored. In relation to head of charge 4 c), the Committee during its deliberations made a minor typographical amendment to this charge by the deletion of the word of and replacing it with the word on so that the head of charge now reads as follows: 4d 5a 5b 5c 6a 6b We move to Stage Two. Two members of staff who had seen an indecent image of a child on your surgery computer were lying and were liars; and The Committee, having accepted the Legal Adviser s advice on this matter, was satisfied that this minor amendment could be made without any injustice, in accordance with Rule 18. In respect of head of charge 4 the Committee determined that 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d were proved in accordance with the evidence contained within Mr Aghaei s police interview. It noted that a full transcript had been made of the tape-recorded interview and that he had been cautioned at the outset of the interview. The Committee found that in interview Mr Aghaei stated that he had used a spy camera to try to catch people stealing instruments from the practice. Mr Aghaei also stated that he had not been able to get the camera to work properly. In this police interview Mr Aghaei also stated that the two members of staff who had seen an indecent image of a child on his practice computer were lying, and that although the police may find some soft pornography on that computer they would not find any images of the kind alleged. The Committee determined in relation to head of charge 5 that Mr Aghaei s conduct, in lying to the police to conceal his guilt, had been misleading, deliberately misleading and dishonest. The Committee determined that Mr Aghaei s conduct represented a failure to justify the trust that patients, the public and colleagues had placed in him and demonstrated a failure to maintain appropriate standards of professional behaviour. On 4 December 2014 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Misconduct Ms French: The Committee has considered whether the findings in this case amount to misconduct. In so doing, it has considered all the evidence presented to it, as set out in the AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -5/9-

6 hearing bundle (C1) as well as Mr Aghaei s undated letter to the GDC (which was received on 31 July 2014) (C7). It has also taken into account the submissions you have made on behalf of the GDC. The Committee has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The facts of this case are that on 19 May 2014 Mr Aghaei was convicted, upon his own confession, at Mold Crown Court, of: a. Voyeurism (recording a person doing a private act) pursuant to Section 67(3) Sexual Offences Act 2003; b. Possession of an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child pursuant to Section 1(1)c Protection of Children Act 1978; c. Possession of an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child pursuant to Section 1(1)c Protection of Children Act 1978; and, d. Possession of extreme pornographic images an act which threatens a person s life pursuant to Section 63(1) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act Mr Aghaei was sentenced to eight months imprisonment on 27 June He was also made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) for a period of 10 years under Section 104 and 106 of the Sexual Offences Act The Committee found proved that the offences for which Mr Aghaei was convicted took place at Grosvenor Dental Practice (the Practice), where he worked as a dentist. The Committee received evidence that the police carried out investigations against Mr Aghaei following their arrest of him on 19 March 2012 in relation to these offences under the Sexual Offences Act It found proved that when questioned by the police at an interview on 19 March 2012, Mr Aghaei stated that he had used a spy camera to try to catch people who were stealing instruments. He said that he could never get the spy camera to work. He also stated that two members of staff at the Practice who had seen an indecent image of a child on his surgery computer were lying and were liars and that the Police would find some soft pornography on the surgery computer but nothing like the indecent images suggested to him. Mr Aghaei effectively denied the criminal charges against him. However, he later pleaded guilty to four criminal charges at Mold Crown Court on 19 May The Committee found proved that the statements Mr Aghaei made to the Police during an interview on 19 March 2012 were misleading, deliberately misleading and dishonest. It also found proved that Mr Aghaei s conduct in this regard did not justify the trust that patients, the public and colleagues place in him as a registered dentist. Moreover, he failed to maintain appropriate standards of professional behaviour. On behalf of the GDC you have submitted that the findings in this case are serious, both in the context of criminal proceedings and in the context of regulatory proceedings. You invited the Committee to conclude that they amount to misconduct. You submitted that the heads of charge that have been found proved at 2, 4, 5 and 6 were not single acts but instead were multiple offences committed over a period of time. Committee s reasons on misconduct The Committee first considered whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct. In so doing, it has had regard to the nature of Mr Aghaei s conviction, which relate to serious AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -6/9-

7 sexual matters, for which he was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and he was placed under a SOPO. The offences took place at Mr Aghaei s Practice where he worked as a dentist. Furthermore, it considered its findings that during the course of a police interview Mr Aghaei made a number of statements which were misleading, deliberately misleading and dishonest. In its deliberations, the Committee has had regard to the following paragraphs of GDC s Standards for Dental Professionals (May 2005) which states that as a dentist you must: 6 Be trustworthy 6.1 Justify the trust that your patients, the public and your colleagues have in you by always acting honestly and fairly. 6.3 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. In light of the Committee s findings, it is clear that Mr Aghaei breached these fundamental standards and pursued a course of conduct which fell far below those reasonably expected of a registered dentist. The Committee is in no doubt that fellow professionals would regard this conduct as deplorable. Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that the findings against Mr Aghaei are serious and amount to misconduct. Impairment The Committee then went on to consider whether Mr Aghaei s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction and/or misconduct. In doing so, it exercised its independent judgement. Throughout its deliberations, it has borne in mind its primary duty to protect the public interest. The public interest 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. You, on behalf of the GDC, have submitted that in light of the serious nature of the findings against Mr Aghaei, his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction and by reason of his misconduct. During the course of your submissions, you referred the Committee to Mr Aghaei s statement to the GDC, received on 31 July 2014, in which he effectively seeks to downplay or deny the seriousness of his offending behaviour. You submitted that this document raises significant concerns regarding his lack of insight and therefore raises a risk of repetition. The Committee has read Mr Aghaei s letter in which he effectively rejects the offences for which he was convicted at Mold Crown Court. Mr Aghaei states that he had been convicted for the possession of pornographic images at level 1 and 3. He seeks to minimise his actions either by suggesting that it was an accident (in that he did not know what he was downloading from the internet) or by downplaying the seriousness of the pornographic information found by the Police. Furthermore, Mr Aghaei offers no apology or remorse for his offending behaviour. The Committee considers that the content of his statement raises significant concerns as to his level of insight, if any, into his offending behaviour. The Committee has had regard to the serious nature of Mr Aghaei s conviction for sexual offences, the conduct having taken place at his Practice. He knowingly filmed a member of staff doing a private act, for his own sexual gratification, without their consent. He was also found to be in possession of indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child and an AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -7/9-

8 extreme pornographic image showing an act which threatened a person s life. The Committee also found him to be dishonest in that he gave false statements to the police during the course of the interview on 19 March There is no evidence before this Committee to satisfy it that Mr Aghaei has shown any insight into his offending behaviour. Indeed, in his letter to the GDC he seeks to deny the criminal matters he had admitted to at Mold Crown Court. In the Committee s view, Mr Aghaei presents a continuing risk to the public and to the reputation of the dental profession. The Committee is in no doubt that the conduct that led to Mr Aghaei s conviction for sexual offences raises significant concerns regarding his gross abuse of the trust that patients are entitled to place in a dentist. In light of the totality of the findings against Mr Aghaei, and having regard to the need to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, the Committee has determined that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction and also by reason of his misconduct. Sanction The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on his 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 Professional Conduct Committee (November 2009) (the Guidance). The Committee applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Mr Aghaei s own interests. The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least serious. In the light of the findings against Mr Aghaei, including the serious nature of his conviction, the Committee has determined that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case without taking any action in respect of his registration or with a reprimand. The Committee next considered whether a period of conditional registration would be appropriate in this case. In the Committee s judgement, given the serious nature of the findings in this case, there are no conditions that could be formulated which would adequately address the circumstances of this case. In short, conditions would not be sufficient for the protection of the public or be in the public interest in the light of its findings. The Committee went on to consider whether to suspend Mr Aghaei s registration. The Committee takes a serious view of Mr Aghaei s conviction. The Committee notes that the offending behaviour for which he was convicted related to multiple offences that took place on a number of occasions. The criminal justice system and the regulatory system take a serious view of such conduct. Taking all these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that the sanction of suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient for maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards. The Committee is in no doubt that Mr Aghaei s offending behaviour and his dishonest conduct is unacceptable and is highly damaging to a registrant s fitness to practise and to public confidence in dental professionals. Furthermore, Mr Aghaei s conviction for sexual offences is extremely serious and is fundamentally incompatible with him 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 Mr Aghaei s interests, but in the light of the serious nature AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -8/9-

9 of the matters found proved, the Committee considers that the public interest clearly outweighs Mr Aghaei s own interests in this matter. The Committee now invites submissions from you, as to whether Mr Aghaei s registration should be suspended immediately, pending the taking effect of its substantive direction of erasure. Decision on immediate order Ms French: Having directed that Mr Aghaei s name be erased from the Register, the Committee has considered whether to impose an order for immediate suspension in accordance with Section 30(1) of the Dentists Act You, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), have submitted that such an order is necessary in light of the Committee s findings. In all the circumstances, the Committee has determined that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest to impose an order for the immediate suspension of Mr Aghaei s registration. The Committee has imposed the highest possible sanction in this case, as it is satisfied that Mr Aghaei s conduct and behaviour are incompatible with professional registration. It is also satisfied that he poses an ongoing risk to the public. It is also mindful that Mr Aghaei has been released from prison and would have no restrictions on his ability to practise if no immediate order was made. The Committee therefore decided that it would be inconsistent to allow Mr Aghaei the opportunity to continue to practise during the intervening appeal period, particularly given that any appeal would be unlikely to be concluded for a considerable period of time. The effect of the foregoing determination and this immediate order is that Mr Aghaei s registration will be suspended from the date on which notice of this decision is deemed served upon him. Unless he exercises his right of appeal, his name will be erased from the Dentists Register 28 days from the date of deemed service. Should Mr Aghaei exercise his right of appeal, this immediate order for suspension will remain in place until the resolution of any appeal. The interim order of suspension on Mr Aghaei s registration is hereby revoked in accordance with Section 27B(9) of the Dentists Act That concludes this case. AGHAEI, K Professional Conduct Committee December 2014 Page -9/9-