Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JARMAN QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Between:
GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL
Applicant
v
JAMES FITZGERALD
Respondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Sophie Holme (instructed by the NMC) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
J U D G M E N T
JUDGE JARMAN QC: This is an application under section 32(8) of the Dentist Act 1984 for the continuation of an interim suspension order made in respect of the respondent, Mr Fitzgerald, by the appropriate committee of the General Dental Council now some 18 months ago. Part of the reason for the delay is that Dr Fitzgerald did not engage with the process for some 8 months or so, did not give consent to be medically assessed or for records or matters of that sort. Eventually, however, he did give that consent and a report was obtained from a Dr Garvey on his condition, which is alcohol dependency. Dr Garvey is of the opinion that he is not fit to return to dentistry unless he agrees to drink within safe limits.
The matter, I am told, will now have to be referred back to the relevant committee to decide what charges they are going to bring, and accordingly an extension is sought of 12 months. Mr Fitzgerald at one time appeared to suggest he may consent to that extension, but in recent emails he has indicated that the period of suspension is causing him loss and he has had to give up lucrative employment abroad. By an email, dated 5 January 2015, he says that he needs an urgent solution. That appears to me would give some hope that he is now prepared to engage with the process and indeed his consent to the assessment, withheld for so long, also gives that indication.
I must have regard to the seriousness of the allegation and it is a serious allegation); I must have regard to the seriousness of risk to patients, again that is serious; I must have regard to potential prejudice to the respondent, and again that is serious; and I must have regard to the reason for the extension. It does seem to me that now that this report has been obtained the Committee should proceed with all due speed and if there is to be a hearing set that hearing down within a very short period. Accordingly I am not persuaded that I should grant an extension of 12 months and the appropriate extension balancing all those other factors, in my judgment, is one of 3 months.
JUDGE JARMAN QC: You say there is a draft order at page 19, so I will amend that to 3 months. I think 3 goes, does it not?
MISS HOLME: I no longer have a copy.
JUDGE JARMAN QC: That is the review of the order within a period of 3 months, so that goes. Thank you.