Miss Jones was a dental nurse working at a large practice in London. When she was
a student she had sometimes smoked cannabis.
Ten years before she registered with the GDC, she was convicted of possessing 16.9
grams of cannabis resin and to pay a fine of £80.
When she registered with the GDC, she was asked to declare on the application form
whether she had ever been convicted of a criminal offence and she ticked the ‘no’
box, as the conviction was from ten years ago. She mentioned this to another dental
nurse at the practice where she now works who suggested that she should tell the
GDC that she lied on the form. Miss Jones wrote to the GDC and the case was considered
by a fitness to practise caseworker.
The fitness to practise caseworker considered that Miss Jones may have breached
a number of the standards and guidance in Standards for the Dental Team including
(but not limited to):
- 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity.
- 1.3.2 You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute.
- 9.1 You must ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies
patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the dental profession.
The Investigating Committee thought that her failure to declare her conviction when
she registered was misleading and possibly dishonest and decided to refer her to
the Professional Conduct Committee.
The Investigating Committee was also concerned about the conviction itself as it
related to drugs offences.
When the Conduct Committee considered the case, it recognised that Miss Jones thought
the conviction was spent and so she was not necessarily deliberately trying to conceal
her conviction. They thought her conduct was careless and misleading rather than
dishonest. The committee also praised her insight and honesty in bringing the issue
to the attention of the GDC, particularly when it exposed her to considerable risk
of action being taken against her registration.
The committee found that Miss Jones’ fitness to practise was not impaired. This
was largely down to the fact that she had self-referred in the way that she did.
The committee stated that if she had not done this and the information had come
to light in another way, then the consequences could have been more serious.