GDC Spent £271,865 on 'no case to answer' Fitness to Practise Hearing
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 23 August 2023 10:09
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 3103
GDPUK readers may recall the report of how the GDC pushed on with recent fitness to practice proceedings, even as the council’s case unravelled. A new Freedom of Information (FOI) request has shed some light on the financial costs involved, and the GDC’s decision making processes.
The GDC case was centred on what were alleged to be incorrect claims for NHS work and specified dishonesty. If found proven at a hearing, dishonesty is often held to be irredeemable and results in erasure.
Starting with 10 charges, by the commencement of the hearing 6 had already been withdrawn by the GDC. Despite this they pushed on. The GDC’s expert witness was accused of “flip flopping,” giving an “excruciating” performance, and having “an evident lack of expertise.” It was even questioned whether the GDC’s expert understood or even looked at key data in the manner the case required. Despite this the GDC submitted that there was “more than enough evidence to require the case to proceed.” GDPUK.com - Another GDC Expert Witness Left Wanting
The committee determined that there was no case to answer. It stated that it had “determined that there is no evidence on which a reasonable committee, properly directed, could find the remaining Heads of charge proved.”
Leeds Dentist, Dominic O’Hooley, submitted an FOI to the GDC on May 27th about the case. He asked about the total costs of the hearing, and two further questions.
FOI’s should be answered in 20 days. In fact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) says that: “You should regard the 20-working-day limit as a ‘long stop’, in other words the latest possible date on which you may issue a response.”
Dr O’Hooley did not receive his reply in 20 days. On June 26th the GDC emailed to advise that the Information Governance Team would require more time. With no response from the GDC, on July 20th Dr O’Hooley asked for his request to be reviewed. With no more than an automatic acknowledgement, on the 26th of July Dr O’Hooley emailed that he would need to escalate to the ICO. He finally received a partially successful reply on August 26th
The GDC said that its costs stood at £271,864.87 as of August 3rd.
This will be a significant under estimate of the full GDC expenditure for a number of reasons. As the GDC explain, they do not not apportion internal staff costs, including legal costs against a case. They did not include all costs of the case from its inception, but narrowed them to external legal costs and the costs of the panel after the case examiner stage. The GDC response makes clear that the figure given will rise as further invoices were still being received, and payments made.
Dr O’Hooley had two further questions. The first asked for details of the decision matrix used by the GDC in deciding to proceed with the case after NHS counter fraud had decided that they would not pursue it.
The GDC replied: “We do not hold a decision matrix or similar document and so we are not able to provide a copy of this in response to your request.”
The third question was regarding the decision making process used by the GDC in selecting its expert witness. It requested a summary of why it was felt that this particular individual was suitable for an NHS fraud type case.
The GDC response to this may be the most concerning aspect of the whole affair: “We do not hold a document setting out or summarising the decision-making process for the selection of expert witnesses in this case. Similarly, we do not hold a summary of ‘why it was felt that the particular choice was appropriate for this NHS fraud type case’.
This cannot inspire confidence in the GDC’s choice of expert witnesses, and lends credence to the suspicion that it goes ‘shopping’ for ones that will take the most aggressive approach in helping the GDC to make its charges stick.
This case is not an outlier. The expert witness in question was also used by the GDC in the notorious Williams “top-up” case. It is not known how much he was paid by the GDC for his services, on this or other occasions.
The cost of defending the registrant is unknown but may be similar. This will likely have come from his indemnifier. As a result dental professionals will have paid twice for this case, once through their GDC retention fees and again through their indemnity fees.
The cost to the accused registrant’s well-being cannot be calculated in simple financial terms.
Any organisation that took mental health seriously would have cause for reflection after such a case.
GDC Spent £271,865 on 'no case to answer'
Would you buy a second hand car from this Regulator?I have taken a gentle interest in how other regulators work with a particular reference to proportionality . I admit to being somewhat out of my depth but have come to the conclusion we should be careful for what we wish regarding change.
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority, SRA, appear to act mainly by fining apparent poor practice with quite heavy financial penalties. I don’t know who pays these, in as much as the professional insurance/indemnity may only cover legal costs, although I am aware the figure solicitors pay for their cover is very high, so perhaps the fine would be covered, but at what cost for the future?
A member of CILEx, chartered legal executives, a similar registration to solicitors told me they actually have to fund any initial investigation personally, whether it is well-founded or not.
I am sure there are many on the forum who have a deeper knowledge and understanding who might like to correct or expand these observations.
GDC Spent £271,865 on 'no case to answer'
Would you buy a second hand car from this Regulator?You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report