High Court orders new sanction hearing in racist and sexualised comments case

Warning: This story contains comments of a racist nature and references to sexual violence

A High Court ruling has exposed conflicting positions within the GDC fitness to practise process after a dentist found to have made repeated sexualised and discriminatory comments to junior female colleagues and racist remarks was allowed to return to practice under conditions.

The dentist had been suspended for six months by an independent Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in July 2025, but the GDC later supported a Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appeal arguing that the sanction was insufficient and that they should have been erased.

The PCC found that the dentist, between 2020 and 2023, had engaged in repeated inappropriate, sexualised and discriminatory behaviour towards junior female colleagues, alongside comments about female patients’ bodies and discourteous behaviour towards patients.

Staff at the practice reported having comments such as ‘I have my rape eye on you’ directed at them, and being told about a ranking system for women the dentist wanted to ‘shag’. They were asked in detail about their sex lives and threatened with ‘dick pictures’, with one colleague reporting that the registrant stroked their arms inappropriately on multiple occasions.

The clinician also commented on the bodies of female patients, including that it was a ‘shame’ that their patient had ‘a pretty face but such a small chest’. More generalised comments that women ‘belong in the kitchen’ were also reported.

Racist and homophobic remarks were also noted. For example, the dentist was quoted saying that they would ‘pour acid’ on their own daughter if she brought home a black man. They also told a colleague: ‘I hate gays, but I like you.’

What sanctions did the GDC impose?

Initially, the PCC imposed a six-month suspension after finding that erasure would be disproportionate. In reaching that decision, it took account of mitigation including previous good character, some evidence of reflection and remediation, and developing insight. However, it also found that the registrant’s insight and remediation remained limited, and did not treat some comments as sexual in nature.

Discussion of patients’ bodies, for example, was seen to be inappropriate but with ‘nothing to suggest that it was made in a sexual manner’.

In September 2025, following a review by the GDC’s Quality Assurance Group, the GDC wrote to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) to alert it to concerns with the original decision. The PSA then began an appeal process in October, which the GDC confirmed it would not oppose.

Explaining the referral to the PSA, the GDC told Dentistry that it took the view that ‘the sanction imposed was insufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the dental professions.’

At a review hearing in February 2026, a separate PCC found that the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and that it could not be satisfied that a risk of repetition was highly unlikely. However, it revoked the suspension and imposed conditions for 18 months, allowing the registrant to return to practice under restrictions including workplace reporting and notifying the GDC of any disciplinary action. The PSA appeal was acknowledged during this process, though the committee said it did not affect its task or powers at that review hearing.

The result was a unique sequence in which the GDC argued that the dentist should have been erased, while a separate committee within its fitness to practise process allowed them back into practice under conditions despite finding that a risk of repetition remained.

The PSA argued that erasure was the only appropriate sanction, a position supported by the GDC.

The dentist argued before the High Court that the PCC was entitled to consider the steps they had taken since the concerns were raised, including relevant CPD, reflection and the fact that there had been no further incidents reported since referral.

However, Mr Justice Sweeting found that the original committee had placed too much weight on limited evidence of insight and remediation, despite its own findings that the registrant’s insight was partial, their understanding of the impact of their behaviour was incomplete and a risk of repetition remained.

Why has the decision been questioned?

Justice Sweeting found that the original committee had materially underestimated the seriousness of the dentist’s misconduct and failed to grapple with the cumulative gravity of the conduct it had found proved.

Although the High Court had the power to substitute erasure, Justice Sweeting said sanction in a case of this kind involved a ‘multifactorial evaluative exercise’ that was usually best carried out by a specialist tribunal. The case was therefore sent back to a newly constituted PCC to reconsider sanction.

The registrant has given an undertaking to continue practising under the same conditions until the Interim Orders Committee imposes any restrictions while they await a new hearing. 

The GDC said: ‘We were firmly of the view that the original sanction imposed in the case of [redacted] was insufficient to protect the public.

‘The GDC welcomes the decision of the High Court where the court has made clear the seriousness with which persistent sexual misconduct is taken in the context of fitness to practise proceedings for regulated professionals.

‘Where our standards are not met, we will ensure that we take appropriate and proportionate action.’

GDC back in the High Court

It is the second time in recent months that the High Court has been involved in an erasure case. In April, the High Court overturned the erasure of a dentist who had sent ‘racially-motivated’ emails. The dentist in question emailed their former employer asking for their name to be removed from the practice website as they did not want to be associated with ‘Indian dentistry’. As a result, they were erased from the GDC register with immediate suspension.

The judge felt that while the dentist’s actions were a ‘serious departure from the professional standards expected’, they did not show ‘an entrenched or enduring refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing’. 

The erasure was therefore overturned and replaced with a six-month suspension. The court suggested that the PCC’s approach to interpreting sanctions guidelines was ‘flawed’ and had been ‘misapplied’ in this case.

Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.