Preiss v General Dental Council: The Case of the Disappointing Dentist

Preiss v General Dental Council
[2001] H.R.L.R. 56
Privy Council (United Kingdom)

17 July 2001

Brief Summary:

Mr Preiss had been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council (“PCC”) and his registration had been suspended for a period of 12 months as a consequence. He contended that the procedure was in breach of Article 6(1) of the ECHR because the Committee lacked the necessary independence and impartiality. He also alleged that the General Dental Council's procedural rules had also been breached as he had not been given a chance to put forward submissions on the issue of mitigation.

The Facts:

Mr. Preiss was suspended from the practice of dentistry for one year as the result of his poor treatment of one patient.  The patient was missing several back teeth and wanted them replaced but refused to have dentures.  Mr. Preiss began an ambitious plan to attempt to replace her back teeth with crown and bridge work but the plan required the patient to see a hygienist every three months, which the patient failed to do.  Eventually, all of the patient's teeth had to be removed and she now wears full dentures.  Mr. Preiss admitted his fault in enforcing the hygienist appointments and stated that he had been too concerned with not providing the patient with dentures, as she requested.

The Holding:

The Privy Council held that the decision of a professional tribunal affecting the right to practice the profession is a determination of civil rights and obligations for the purpose of the ECHR.  The Privy Council also held that because the President of the General Dental Council acted both as Preliminary Screener and as chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council ("PCC") (and there were several other General Dental Council members in the PCC) even thoughn the proceedings against Mr. Preiss were brought by the General Dental Council, the disciplinary proceedings had an appearance that the PCC lacked the necessary independence and impartiality under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Privy Council also found that the PCC failed to provide Mr. Preiss with the opportunity to provide evidence to mitigate his offense.  Ultimately, the Privy Council held that Mr. Preiss should not have been suspended and should only have been admonished.  

The Privy Council also held that although the PCC hearing took place before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into operation in the United Kingdom, it applied retroactively.

 

Villain?

 

Our well-meaning dentist made a (very large) mistake but even the Privy Council seemed to think that his patient was difficult and that he did not deserve his punishment.  Not a villain.