Sexual assault dentist still on register

The dentist convicted of sexually assaulting a dental nurse during an examination at his surgery in Cork is still registered to practise here.

John Tait, aged 60, of Glen House, Upper Rochestown, Cork, was found guilty in May of sexually assaulting the 19-year-old woman at his surgery at St Patrick’s Terrace, in Douglas, Cork, on Dec 20, 2006. The father of three had denied the charge.

Yesterday, at Cork Circuit Criminal Court, Judge Raymond Fullam imposed a 15-month sentence on Tait but suspended it on condition he be of good behaviour. Tait did not apologise to the victim until the last minute.

However, it has emerged Tait has yet to be struck off. The Irish Dental Council has confirmed it has yet to consider what action it might take following Tait’s conviction and sentencing.

A spokesman for the council said it has power under section 42 of the Dentist Act 1985 to investigate cases where dentists have been convicted of an indictable offence.

The IDC would have to get legal advice before considering such a case, he said.

Such matters would then go before the full council for hearing, rather than an IDC sub-committee, as would be the case in a fitness to practise case.

In fitness to practise hearings, a dentist can by temporarily suspended or have conditions attached to his registration. There are four possible sanctions in cases where dentists have been convicted of indictable offences: erasure from the register, advice, admonishment, or censure.

The IDC has considered three such cases since 2007, resulting in the erasure of one dentist from the register in 2009 following his conviction for a fraud offence.

It has held about seven fitness to practise hearings in the same period. There are about 2,600 dentists on the IDC’s register.

Despite being still on the register and free to see patients, Tait has not practised since his conviction in May.

In court yesterday, Judge Fullam asked Tait’s lawyer, Tim O’Leary, after the close of his submission: “You said you were not ignoring the victim. Have you anything to say other than that?”

Mr O’Leary said: “If your lordship is minded, in relation to compensation.”

The judge said that that was not what he was talking about and explained: “There are a number of matters the court likes to hear in mitigation. The obvious one is an apology.”

Mr O’Leary consulted his client and when the court resumed, he called Tait.

“You accept the verdict of the jury?” asked Mr O’Leary.

“Yes, absolutely,” he replied. Asked if he wanted to apologise, Tait said: “I want to apologise unreservedly for any and all upset to her.”

Mr O’Leary asked: “Do you accept you caused that upset?”

Tait replied: “I accept absolutely the upset that I caused to her. I unreservedly apologise to her.”

Speaking afterwards, Sally Hanlon of Support for Victims of Crime, who accompanied the victim throughout the legal process, said the apology came “more or less sought by the judge”. “It would have been nice if it was given freely and not helped along.”