General Dental Council v Jamous (2013) (2013) EWHC 1428 (Admin)
J had undertaken a day-long course in teeth whitening and gained a qualification from the Fuss Beauty School. It was alleged by the GDC in a private prosecution that J, in performing teeth whitening,
J had undertaken a day-long course in teeth whitening and gained a qualification from the Fuss Beauty School. It was alleged by the GDC in a private prosecution that J, in performing teeth whitening, had illegally practised dentistry contrary to the Dentists Act 1984. Section 37(1) of that Act stipulates that the practice of dentistry should be deemed to include 'the performance of any such operation…treatment, advice or attendance as is usually performed or given by dentists'.
At first instance, expert evidence was called on the risks of the whitening procedure, and reliance placed on the dental practice guidance which provided that some dental healthcare professionals (i.e. dental hygienists) could only carry out teeth whitening under a dentist’s prescription. It was submitted that this meant that tooth whitening was the 'practice of dentistry'.
The District Judge rejected this argument on the grounds that the purpose of the guidance was to regulate the practice of dentistry, rather than define what amounted to dental practice. The word “usually” in s.37(1) was to be given a broader meaning which necessarily took into account the fact that others outside the profession undertook teeth whitening.
However, on appeal to the High Court by the GDC, it was held that teeth whitening did fall within the definition set out at s.37(1). J had argued that, as tooth whitening treatments could be purchased for use at home (up to a certain strength), they could not fall within the s.37(1) definition, as it was akin to a parent brushing a child's teeth. The High Court did not agree, holding that the public was entitled to protection against being treated by those who were not qualified to do so. The word “usually” was to be given its ordinary meaning and so if the treatment was “usually” administered by dentists it was irrelevant that others also did so in a domestic setting. Parents helping their children to brush their teeth were not acting as professionals. The appeal was therefore allowed and the case was remitted to the Magistrates' Court so that J could be sentenced.
At first instance, expert evidence was called on the risks of the whitening procedure, and reliance placed on the dental practice guidance which provided that some dental healthcare professionals (i.e. dental hygienists) could only carry out teeth whitening under a dentist’s prescription. It was submitted that this meant that tooth whitening was the 'practice of dentistry'.
The District Judge rejected this argument on the grounds that the purpose of the guidance was to regulate the practice of dentistry, rather than define what amounted to dental practice. The word “usually” in s.37(1) was to be given a broader meaning which necessarily took into account the fact that others outside the profession undertook teeth whitening.
However, on appeal to the High Court by the GDC, it was held that teeth whitening did fall within the definition set out at s.37(1). J had argued that, as tooth whitening treatments could be purchased for use at home (up to a certain strength), they could not fall within the s.37(1) definition, as it was akin to a parent brushing a child's teeth. The High Court did not agree, holding that the public was entitled to protection against being treated by those who were not qualified to do so. The word “usually” was to be given its ordinary meaning and so if the treatment was “usually” administered by dentists it was irrelevant that others also did so in a domestic setting. Parents helping their children to brush their teeth were not acting as professionals. The appeal was therefore allowed and the case was remitted to the Magistrates' Court so that J could be sentenced.