[reposted from LinkedIn]
“The contents of this judgment stand as a salutary warning to local authorities and to other public bodies concerned with fitness to practise in occupations concerned with or touching on the welfare of children…I hope what took place in this case will not happen again.”
These are the concluding words of General Dental Council v KK & Anor [2024] EWHC 3053 (Fam), a stinging judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles in the Family Court.
During the course of a fitness to practise (FTP) investigation involving “KK” the General Dental Council (GDC) were informed by the police that a local authority, Stockport Council (SMBC), held information relating to public law proceedings involving the care of children. Under s12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA) it is criminal contempt to disclose much of the information in relation to such proceedings. Notwithstanding this (and apparently ignorant of it) the GDC made a request for information to SMBC, alluding to its powers to require supply of information under s33B(2) of The Dentists Act 1984 (DA). SMBC subsequently disclosed a raft of information to the GDC, apparently under the belief that s33B(2) compelled them to do so.
However, s33B(3) of the DA states that “nothing in this section shall require or permit any disclosure of information which is prohibited by any relevant enactment”: section 12(1)(a) of the AJA clearly was a “relevant enactment” prohibiting the disclosure.
The upshot was an unholy mess: the information disclosed was used by the GDC in the FTP proceedings and it was almost four years into those protracted proceedings before the issue of the unlawfully disclosed information came to light. An application by GDC to the Family Court for an order for (lawful) disclosure was made, and Knowles J indicated during the initial hearing that contempt proceedings would not be necessary or proportionate “subject to the Court being satisfied that all unauthorised material disclosed to the GDC had been deleted from its server and was no longer in its possession”. By that point though, in the FTP proceedings, there had been (deep breath) “11 interim order hearings; 4 extensions…in the High Court; 3 substantive hearings before the Professional Conduct Committee and 6 preliminary hearings before the Practice Committee…and at least 149 individuals needed to be contacted to ascertain whether they held unauthorised disclosure arising from their work on behalf of the GDC.” The deletion process took approximately six months.
Ultimately, appropriate, restricted and lawful disclosure by SMBC was ordered. Contempt proceedings against GDC and SMBC (and individuals) were not necessary.
GDC and SMBC jointly have to meet KK’s costs, and – although the judgment records that both have since initiated training/protocols etc to prevent any recurrence – in the words of the judge, “both have been shamed by what occurred”.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
informationrightsandwrongs 