Dentist disqualified for second time

A dentist suspended for poor patient treatment was told today he will be disqualified for a second time.

Iain Marshall was disqualified for a year in 2005 after the General Dental Council (GDC) upheld complaints that he provided defective treatment at his Belfast practice.

Mr Marshall, who is in his 40s and was based on the Sandown Road until 2001, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct for failing to keep proper records, diagnose and treat an infectious disease and carrying out poor dental surgery.

Following the GDC’s judgment, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence challenged the penalty in the High Court in London, where Mr Justice Hodge ruled the council must reconsider its sanction.

Today, after hearing evidence and reviewing Mr Marshall’s training, his conduct and proficiency, the council decided to suspend his registration again for 12 months, beginning in 28 days' time.

At the end of the period, it will reconsider his case.

The council said: “In all the circumstances the committee considers that the options of concluding this case today, and postponing judgment for a period, would both be insufficient to protect the public.

“The committee has considered whether erasure would be an appropriate sanction, but is satisfied that this would be disproportionately harsh in the light of the evidence about improvements in your practice.

“The committee has therefore decided that the appropriate sanction is to suspend your registration for a period of 12 months.”

During a two-day hearing in central London, the council heard Mr Marshall has been living and working as a dentist in New Zealand since 2002.

The New Zealand Dentist Board ordered a review of Mr Marshall’s work, after which he was put under a supervision order and restricted in the treatments he could perform. He was also ordered to undertake a new educational training programme and sit an assessment set by the board.

The council said that while Mr Marshall is now living in New Zealand, it felt the suspension was necessary to “to ensure that you cannot practice in the UK, whilst allowing you to continue the supervision and educational programme that you have commenced in New Zealand”.