The dispute settled for an undisclosed sum of damages to the technician and an admission by the General Dental Council (GDC) that it acted ‘unlawfully in undertaking an under-guise operation without reasonable justification’.
Dental Protection, which is part of the Medical Protection Society, said the technician was the subject of an anonymous complaint to the GDC that he may be working without registration, and that his laboratory was in a bespoke setting in his home. The GDC instructed an under-guise operation creating a fictitious scenario with two private investigators posing as relatives of ‘Evelyn’, an elderly relative who needed dentures but was too ill to attend in person.
However, the Interim Orders Committee concluded that any evidence from the investigation was flawed and unfair, and the GDC Fitness to Practise Committee halted any further action on grounds of an abuse of process.
Dental Protection, instructing BLM associate Lee Biddle, sought an order against the GDC to recover legal costs, which the GDC conceded last August.
The GDC has since accepted a declaration by the court that it acted unlawfully and in breach of the technician’s rights under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Data Protection Acts 1998 and 2018.
Raj Rattan, dental director at Dental Protection, said: ‘The GDC targeting its own registrants without a sufficiently justified cause is extremely concerning for dentists.
‘The use of an entirely contrived scenario about a sick pensioner in very difficult circumstances was designed to trigger an emotional response and lure a registrant into acting outside of their scope. This is hardly an ordinary opportunity for wrongdoing, and it is unfair and invasive.’
General Dental Council executive director, fitness to practise, John Cullinane said: ‘The General Dental Council has used undercover investigators in fitness to practise cases extremely rarely.
‘Where there is potential risk to the public, and where there is no other way to investigate a specific allegation that has been made, we will consider use of undercover approaches. A robust process is in place to assess risk to public health, safety and wellbeing, which is designed to balance public protection with the rights of the individuals concerned. We take this responsibility extremely seriously.’
