Hearing held in public. Summary. For the remainder of the duration of the High Court extension

Transcription

1 Hearing held in public Summary Name: SAFDAR, Nadim [Registration number: 71868] Type of case: Outcome: Duration: Interim Orders Committee (review) Conditions varied For the remainder of the duration of the High Court extension Date: 28 March 2018 The role of the Interim Orders Committee (IOC) is to undertake a risk assessment based on the information before it. Its role is to assess the nature and substance of any risk to the public in all the circumstances of the case and to consider whether it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the registrant s own interests to impose an interim order on their registration. It is not the role of the IOC to make findings of fact in relation to any charge. That is the role of a differently constituted committee at a later stage in the process. Decision on service of notice of hearing: Mr Safdar is neither present nor represented at today s review hearing. Mr Pataky appears on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC). Following advice from the Legal Adviser, the Committee first considered whether the Notification of Hearing had been served on Mr Safdar in accordance with Rules 35 and 65 of the General Dental Council (GDC) (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 ( the Rules ). The Committee has received a copy of Notification of Hearing letter dated 16 March 2018 which contains information relating to the date, time and venue of today s hearing, as well as its purpose, in accordance with Rule 35. The letter also advises Mr Safdar that a copy of the letter has been sent to his representative at Brett Wilson Solicitors. The Royal Mail track and trace receipt records that the letter was delivered to Mr Safdar s registered address and was signed for on 17 March A copy of the Notification of Hearing letter was also ed to Mr Safdar on 16 March 2018, as confirmed by the GDC secure file share receipt. Finally, the Committee has seen a copy of a letter dated 26 March 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors in which they set out their observations in respect of today s hearing. Having regard to all these documents, the Committee is satisfied that the 1

2 Notification of Hearing letter has been served on Mr Safdar in accordance with Rules 35 and 65. Decision on proceeding in the Registrant s absence: The Committee then considered whether to proceed to review this case in the absence of Mr Safdar, in accordance with Rule 54. Mr Pataky invited the Committee to conduct this review in the absence of Mr Safdar. During the course of his submissions, Mr Pataky advised the Committee that there was a statutory requirement to review this order within three months of the extension of the order by the High Court, in accordance the Dentists Act 1984 (the Act). The Committee has considered the submissions made. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee is satisfied that the Notification of Hearing letter has been served on Mr Safdar. Further, it notes the representations made on behalf of Mr Safdar in the letter dated 26 March 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors. In that letter they set out Mr Safdar s current situation as well as their proposed amendments to the current order of conditions. However, they also make it clear that Mr Safdar has not instructed them to either attend today s hearing or to challenge the current interim conditions. The Committee has concluded that Mr Safdar has voluntarily absented himself from today s hearing. He has not sought an adjournment of today s review hearing. The Committee has also had regard to the fact that there is a statutory requirement to review this order. In these circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that it is appropriate to review this matter in the absence of Mr Safdar. Decision on Review: Mr Safdar s case was first considered by the Interim Orders Committee (IOC) on 13 July 2016 when it determined that it was in the public interest that Mr Safdar s registration be subject to an interim order of conditions for a period of 18 months. The IOC noted receipt of information in May 2016 from NHS Protect to the GDC regarding various concerns, including that fraudulent claims had been made for non-existent courses of dental treatment. On 26 May 2016, Mr Safdar was arrested by Kent Police at the request of NHS Protect and his home and business addresses were searched. He was interviewed under caution at Canterbury Police Station and released on bail for 6 months whilst NHS Protect investigated further. The IOC concluded that conditions of practice were appropriate for a period of 18 months, noting that Mr Safdar had engaged with the GDC in the process. The order was reviewed by the IOC on 5 January 2017 and the interim conditions were continued on the same grounds and for the same reasons stated by the IOC in July The 2

3 IOC in January 2017 noted that the NHS Protect investigation was ongoing and that Mr Safdar remained on bail until January A second review hearing took place on the papers on 21 June 2017, where the IOC noted that Mr Safdar returned to answer bail on 22 May 2017 where he was interviewed under caution. The IOC also noted that Mr Safdar had yet to be charged with any offence and that the NHS investigations against him were still ongoing. The IOC considered that there had been no material change in Mr Safdar s case and accordingly determined to continue the interim order of conditions, without variation. A third review hearing took place on the papers on 30 November 2017 when the IOC determined to continue the interim order of conditions, without variation. That order was extended by the High Court on 2 January 2018 for a period of six months from the expiry of the order (12 January 2018). In accordance with Section 32(11)(b) of the Act the Committee has reviewed the order within three months of the High Court extension. In doing so, it has had regard to the documents contained in the hearing bundle, as well as the addendum bundle provided by the Defence. The bundle contains a copy of the letter dated 26 March 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors, an dated 23 January 2018 from NHS Counter Fraud Authority and correspondence dated 8 January 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The letter dated 23 January 2018 from NHS Counter Fraud Authority refers to the collation of evidential material of alleged fraudulent activity at three of Mr Safdar s dental practices. It advises that all relevant information will be provided to the CPS by March 2018 with a view to a decision to be taken on the subject of criminal charges. The Committee notes from the dated 27 March 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors to the GDC the indication that Mr Safdar denies the charges. Mr Pataky advised that the GDC s investigation is on hold pending the outcome of the criminal investigation against Mr Safdar and that a decision on that matter is likely to take place within the next few months. He also confirmed that the GDC s position is that there have been no concerns regarding Mr Safdar s compliance with the interim order of conditions. He submitted that an interim order remains necessary in the public interest given the serious nature of the allegations against him. However, he invited the Committee to consider varying conditions 7 3

4 to 10 by the addition of the words At any time he is providing NHS dental services at the start of each condition. The Committee has seen a copy of a letter dated 26 March 2018 from Brett Wilson Solicitors in which they confirm that Mr Safdar s NHS contract ended on 31 January 2018 and that he no longer performs NHS work. Further, the letter states that Mr Safdar does not intend to reconsider that decision whilst the fraud investigation is ongoing. In view of this situation, Brett Wilson Solicitors invited this Committee to remove the current conditions 6 to 10 as they serve no purpose and that condition 11 should be amended to read listed at 1-5 rather than listed at 1-10 to reflect the change in numbering. The letter further states that if Mr Safdar were to apply to return to NHS work at some stage in the future, then this interim order of conditions could be reviewed. The Committee has borne in mind the submissions made by both parties. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It considers that the allegations against Mr Safdar, which relate to fraud and conspiracy to fraud, are serious. It notes that Mr Safdar has not been charged with these matters. It also notes that he denies these matters. In all the circumstances, the Committee has determined that an interim order is required on the grounds of the public interest. Given that there has been no notable change in Mr Safdar s case, the Committee has decided that an interim order of conditions remains proportionate and sufficient to address public interest concerns that arise from the allegations against him. It notes the information provided which confirms that Mr Safdar has been complying with his conditional registration. The Committee also took into account that no concerns have been raised by the GDC regarding his compliance. The Committee has considered the submissions made by both parties as to whether the conditions should be varied, given that Mr Safdar no longer performs NHS work. Notwithstanding Mr Safdar s stated intention not to do NHS work, the Committee is concerned that if it were to accede to the defence request to remove conditions 6 to 10, there would be insufficient measures to protect the public interest were he to change his mind while he remains on the Performers List. The Committee considers that it is necessary to maintain the current order of conditions, albeit it accepts the GDC s position that conditions 7 to 10 should be amended to include the qualification should Mr Safdar provide NHS dental services. Accordingly, the Committee has determined to continue the interim order of conditions on Mr Safdar s registration but to vary conditions 7 to 10 in the terms proposed by the GDC. The 4

5 order will continue for the remainder of the period of the High Court extension and are as follows: 1. He must notify the GDC within 7 days of any professional appointment he holds or accepts and provide the contact details of his employer or any organisation for which he is contracted to provide dental services and the Commissioning Body on whose Dental Performers List he is included or the Local Health Board if in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. 2. If employed, he must provide contact details of his employer and allow the GDC to exchange information with his employer or any contracting body for which he provides dental services. 3. He must inform the GDC of any formal disciplinary proceedings taken against him, from the date of this determination, within 7 days of notification of any such disciplinary proceedings. 4. He must inform the GDC if he applies for dental employment outside the UK. 5. He must not engage in single-handed dental practice. 6. At any time he is providing NHS dental services, which require him to be registered with the GDC; he must place himself and remain under the direct supervision*** of a workplace supervisor nominated by him within 7 days, and agreed by the GDC. The supervisor must be appropriately experienced in NHS financial claiming, and supervise all his NHS treatment and financial claims. 7. At any time he is providing NHS dental services he must allow his supervisor to provide reports to the GDC at intervals of not more than three months. 8. At any time he is providing NHS dental services he shall maintain a log detailing every case where he submits financial claims to the NHS. This log must be counter signed at the time of the financial claim submission by his supervisor. 5

6 9. At any time he is providing NHS dental services he must provide a copy of this log to the GDC every three months and prior to any review or alternatively, confirm that there have been no such cases. 10. At any time he is providing NHS dental services he must allow his supervisor to provide a complete list of all NHS financial claims submitted under the UDA contract to the GDC every three months and prior to any review or alternatively, confirm that there have been no such cases. 11. He must inform promptly the following parties that his registration is subject to the conditions, listed at 1 to 10, above: a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with him to undertake dental work b. Any locum agency or out-of-hours service he is registered with or applies to be registered with (at the time of application) c. Any prospective employer (at the time of application) d. The Commissioning Body on whose Dental Performers List he is included or seeking to be included, or the Local Health Board if in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. 12. He must permit the GDC to disclose the above conditions to any person requesting information about his registration status. *** Directly supervised The registrant s NHS work must be directly observed and supervised at all times by a person who is registered with the GDC. Unless there has been a material change of circumstances, the Committee will review the interim order on the papers at an administrative meeting within three months of the date of any High Court extension. The Committee would be invited by the GDC to confirm the order and Mr Safdar would be asked whether there are any written submissions to be put before the Committee on his behalf. Mr Safdar would then be notified of the outcome in writing following the decision of the Committee. Alternatively, Mr Safdar would be entitled to have the interim order reviewed at a hearing. This means that he would be able to attend and make representations, send a representative on his behalf or submit written representations about whether the order continues to be 6

7 necessary. Mr Safdar must inform the GDC if he would like the interim order to be reviewed at a hearing. Even if Mr Safdar does not request a hearing, where there has been a material change of circumstances that might mean that the order should be revoked, varied or replaced, the Committee would review the order at a hearing to which Mr Safdar and his representative would be invited to attend. That concludes this determination. 7