JAN Determination [PDF 101KB]

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
JAN, Mohammed Ikram
Registration No: 69585
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
April 2014
Outcome: Fitness to practise impaired; Reprimand issued
Mohammed Ikram Jan registered as of 22 The Paddocks, Queniborough Hall Drive,
Queniborough, Leicester, LE7 3DZ, BDS Sheff 1993, was summoned to appear before the
Professional Conduct Committee on 23 April 2014 for an inquiry into the following charge:
Charge
“That you, a registered dentist:
1. On 14 June 2012 were convicted at Hinkley Magistrates’ Court of driving a motor
vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your blood
exceeded the prescribed limited, contrary to s. 5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 and
schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
AND in light of the above your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of your conviction.”
On 23 April 2014 the Chairman announced the determination as follows:
“Mr Jan
The Committee has considered whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired by
reason of your conviction of June 2012. In so doing, it has considered all of the documentary
evidence presented to it. This includes the hearing bundle, the Certificate of Completion of
the course for drink-driver offenders dated 30 September 2012 and information relating to
the progress you have made on your MSc in Implant Dentistry at Warwick Medical School. In
addition, the Committee had before it a copy of the Care Quality Commission (CQC)
inspection report of an unannounced inspection of Dentspa Dental Health Limited (where
you are the registered manager) dated March 2014. The report confirmed that you had
complied with the relevant standards in all the areas inspected, albeit this case made no
suggestion of any shortcomings in your clinical practice.
The Committee has taken into account the submissions made by Mr Geering, on behalf of
the General Dental Council (GDC), and those made by Mr Cameron, on your behalf. The
Committee has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In reaching its decision on the
issue of impairment, the Committee has exercised its own independent judgement. It has
had in mind the GDC’s Standards for Dental Professionals (May 2005). The Committee has
also noted the observations contained in the Privy Council decision in the case of Dad v the
GDC [2000] UKPC 17 (13th April 2000) and the article entitled “Impairment of fitness to
practise: has the pendulum swung?” by Martin Forde QC (2009).
JAN, M I
Professional Conduct Committee – April 2014
Page -1/4-
The charge, which you admitted at the outset of the hearing, is that on 14 June 2012 you
were convicted at Hinkley Magistrates’ Court of driving after consuming so much alcohol that
the proportion in your blood exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Committee’s
attention was drawn to a copy of the Memorandum of conviction dated 14 June 2012 for
Hinkley Magistrates’ Court, which sets out the details of the offence. Accordingly, in the light
of that information, as well as the admission made on your behalf, the Committee found this
charge proved.
The Committee has noted the facts upon which the conviction was based. On 12
September 2011 at 05:30 the police found you to be driving a motor whilst under the
influence of alcohol. You took two breath tests, which showed that you had 47 and 49 mcg of
alcohol in 100mls of breath. You pleaded guilty and you were disqualified from driving for 3
years, to be reduced on completion of a drink drivers offenders’ course. You were ordered to
pay a fine of £150 and costs of £850.
The Committee has further noted your previous history before the GDC. In a letter to you
dated 24 January 2006 Mrs Crabb, Lead Case Officer, the GDC, referred to the meeting of
the Preliminary Proceedings Committee on 24 January 2006, which considered a report of
your conviction at Hull Magistrates’ Court on 9 June 2005 on a charge of Failing to Provide a
Specimen for Analysis. That Committee took a “grave view” of this conviction and reminded
you of the importance of the guidance contained in the GDC’s Standards for Dental
Professionals and its accompanying documents. This included section 6 of that guidance,
namely the requirement to be trustworthy at all times. The Committee decided not to
summon you to attend an inquiry held by the Professional Conduct Committee, but advised
you that should the GDC receive further adverse information about your conduct, it could
take this conviction into account.
Mr Geering has submitted that your fitness to practise is currently impaired. He referred to
the serious nature of your offence, which put the public at risk. Such conduct, he said,
should be judged in the light of you having been issued with that warning by the GDC in
2006 in relation to similar matters. Mr Geering submitted that there is no evidence to satisfy
this Committee that you have demonstrated any remorse or self-awareness as to your
conduct, or indeed any understanding as to what triggers led to your offending in 2012. In
summary, Mr Geering submitted that public confidence in the profession and the
maintenance of standards would be undermined if a finding of current impairment was not
reached.
Mr Cameron has invited the Committee to conclude that your fitness to practise is not
impaired. He referred to the documents submitted on your behalf, which he said, showed the
steps you have taken to ensure that the conduct that led to your conviction in 2012 will not
be repeated. Mr Cameron has explained to the Committee that you completed the drink
driving course in September 2012 and undertook a meditation course in October 2011.
Further, Mr Cameron referred to your ongoing Continuing Professional Development (CPD),
as demonstrated by the MSc in Dentistry you have embarked on, and to a reduction in the
number of your working hours.
Mr Cameron also explained, although led no evidence on your behalf, that you completed
the 12 step programme of alcoholic rehabilitation; you are attending Alcoholics’ Anonymous
meetings; you have remained abstinent from the consumption of alcohol for over a year and
JAN, M I
Professional Conduct Committee – April 2014
Page -2/4-
you no longer have the matrimonial problems which were present at the time of your offence
in 2012.
The Committee has considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. It notes,
to your credit, that you completed the Drink-Driver Offenders course at the earliest
opportunity. It is concerned that it has no evidence to support some of Mr Cameron’s other
submissions, for example that you are attending meetings of Alcoholics’ Anonymous and
that you have remained abstinent from the consumption of alcohol. Furthermore, the
Committee has received no apology or expressions of regret from you, or through your
representative, as to your offending behaviour. The Committee considers that the evidence
of your remediation which relates directly to your offending behaviour is woefully inadequate.
Moreover, the Committee considers that your conviction of June 2012 for driving a motor
vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol is serious; such conduct is reckless, dangerous
and places the public at risk. The Committee has taken into account of the Standards for
Dental Professionals (May 2005). In particular paragraph 6.3 states that as a dentist you
must:
“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.”
The Committee considers that your actions breached that standard. Furthermore, it has
borne in mind that you only pleaded guilty to the offence on the day of the trial and that you
received a warning by the GDC in January 2006 in relation to a conviction in June 2005 for a
similar offence.
Given the gravity of the offence of which you were convicted, the Committee is satisfied that
such conduct is likely to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public
confidence in the profession. Taking these factors into account, and given that the evidence
of remediation is so inadequate, the Committee has concluded that your fitness to practise is
currently impaired by reason of your conviction.
The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on your registration. It
reminded itself that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive but is to protect the public,
maintain public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper
standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee has borne in mind the principle of
proportionality. It considered the relevant sections of the GDC’s Guidance for the
Professional Conduct Committee (November 2009). In accordance with this guidance, the
Committee considered the available sanctions starting with the least serious.
Mr Geering has submitted that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is a
period of suspension. Mr Cameron has submitted that if the Committee were minded to
impose a sanction then the least possible sanction should be imposed.
The Committee first considered whether it would be appropriate to conclude this case with
no further action. However, given the seriousness with which the Committee views your
conviction, it has concluded that such a course of action would not be sufficient for the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession.
The Committee then went on to consider whether a reprimand would be appropriate. In so
doing, it has considered the serious nature of your conviction and the circumstances in
which the conduct took place. It has also had in mind the mitigating and aggravating features
of this case, as rehearsed earlier in this determination.
JAN, M I
Professional Conduct Committee – April 2014
Page -3/4-
Notwithstanding the seriousness of your conviction, the Committee has determined that the
appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand. In the Committee’s view, such a
sanction is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold
proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee considers that conditions would
be inappropriate and suspension would be disproportionate.
That concludes the case.”
JAN, M I
Professional Conduct Committee – April 2014
Page -4/4-

Download Report