Hearing held on the papers

Summary

Name: GUIRGUIS, Kareem [Registration no: 193829]

Type of case: Interim Orders Committee (review)

Outcome: Suspension continued

Duration: For the remainder of the order

Date: 18 April 2019

Case number: CAS-184880

At this hearing the Committee made a determination that includes some private information.
That information shall be omitted from any public version of this determination and the
document marked to show where private material is removed.
_____

The role of the Interim Orders Committee (IOC) is to undertake a risk assessment based on
the information before it. Its role is to assess the nature and substance of any risk to the public
in all the circumstances of the case and to consider whether it is necessary for the protection
of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the registrant’s own interests to have
an interim order on their registration. It is not the role of the IOC to make findings of fact in
relation to any charge. That is the role of a differently constituted committee at a later stage in
the process.
This is a review of an interim suspension order currently imposed on Mr Guirguis’ registration.
The hearing is being held on the papers in the absence of both parties.
Decision on service of notice of hearing:
Following advice from the Legal Adviser, the Committee first considered whether the
Notification of Hearing letter had been served on Mr Guirguis in accordance with Rules 35 and
65 of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (‘the
Rules’). The Committee has received a copy of a Notification of Hearing dated 10 April 2019
which states the date, time and venue of today’s review hearing, as well as its purpose, in
accordance with Rule 35. In the Committee’s view, this is sufficient notice of this hearing. In
addition, on 10 April 2019 a copy of the Notification of Hearing was emailed to Mr Guirguis’
legal representatives, as confirmed by their email to the General Dental Council (GDC) dated
10 April 2019. Having regard to all these documents, the Committee is satisfied that the
Notification of Hearing has been served on Mr Guirguis in accordance with Rules 35 and 65.
Decision on proceeding in the Registrant’s absence:
The Committee then considered whether to proceed to review this case in the absence of the
parties and on the basis of the papers, in accordance with Rule 54. The GDC, in their written
submissions dated 17 April 2019, invited the Committee to find that all reasonable efforts have
been made by the GDC to send the Notification of Hearing to Mr Guirguis. Further, they refer
to the email to the GDC from Mr Guirguis’ legal representatives dated 16 April 2019 in which
on behalf of Mr Guirguis they confirm that they and he are content for the matter to proceed

Page 1 of 3
and be dealt with on the papers. In these circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that it is
appropriate to review this matter on the basis of the papers and in the absence of both parties.
Application to proceed partly in private
The Committee considered whether the hearing should be held in private as some of the
matters in this case pertain to Mr Guirguis’ health. The starting point for the Committee is for
all hearings to be held in public as it is in the interests of justice to do so. However, a hearing
may be heard in private where matters are linked to the health or private and family life of the
Registrant concerned, under Rule 53(2) of the Rules. The Committee agreed that it is in Mr
Guirguis’ interests that the hearing should be heard in private.
Background
This is the fourth review of an interim order initially imposed on your registration on 12 October
2017 for a period of 18 months. It has been extended by the High court for a further nine
months. The order was considered by that IOC to be necessary for the purposes of public
protection, otherwise in the public interest and in your own interests.
The order was made following the GDC’s receipt of information from the Metropolitan Police.
[PRIVATE]
The order was reviewed and varied on 06 April 2018 and 05 October 2018.
On 1 February 2019 the interim conditions were revoked and an interim suspension order was
imposed. The IOC Committee stated that there remained a real risk of harm to the public and
Mr guirguis if an order were not. [PRIVATE]. Therefore the interim conditions were revoked
and an interim suspension order was imposed.
On 26 March 2019 the Case Examiners (CE) determined that there was a realistic prospect
of these allegations being found proved and referred the case to the GDC’s Health Committee.
Submissions
The GDC in their written submissions stated
[PRIVATE] As a result of his non-compliance there is a real risk of patient harm and an
interim order is therefore necessary for public protection and is otherwise in the public
interest.
The public would expect a registered dentist to comply with interim conditions imposed
by the Council. As a result of the Registrant’s failure to do so, an interim suspension order
is required to maintain public trust and confidence in the profession and to uphold proper
professional standards. In addition, there are now serious allegations of dishonesty
referred by the CEs.
In view of the above, the ISO also remains in the Defendant’s own interests, not least to
provide him with a path to recovery.”
Mr Guirguis’ legal representatives in their written submissions stated that
“Mr Guirguis is not contesting the continuation of the order.”
Decision
In comprehensively reviewing the order, the Committee had regard to all the documentary
information provided to it, including written submissions from the GDC, and had regard to the
GDC’s Interim Order guidance for decision makers – Interim Orders Committee (October
2016).
The Committee has borne in mind its purpose which is to assess if there remains a risk to the
public in all the circumstances of this case. In its considerations, the Committee applied the

Page 2 of 3
principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Mr Guirguis’ own interests. The
Committee was not bound by the decision made by the previous IOC and exercised its
independent judgment. It had to consider whether it is still necessary for the protection of the
public, otherwise in the public interest, or in Mr Guirguis’ own interests, for there to remain an
interim order on his registration.
The GDC submits that there has been no material change since the last IOC hearing which
might necessitate a change in the order. Mr Guirguis’ legal representatives do not contest the
continuation of the interim order. The Committee took account of these submissions and the
information provided to it. It was satisfied that the order remains necessary on the same
grounds and for the same reasons as stated by the IOC on 1 February 2019. The Committee
determined that an interim order of suspension remains the appropriate and proportionate
order.
Review
Unless there has been a material change of circumstances, the Committee will review the
interim suspension order on the papers at an administrative meeting within the next six
months. The Committee will be invited by the GDC to confirm this order and the Registrant
will be asked in advance whether he wishes to provide any written representations to be put
to the Committee on his behalf. He will then be notified in writing following the Committee’s
decision.
Alternatively, the Registrant is entitled to request this interim order to be reviewed at a hearing.
This means he will be able to attend, with a representative if he wishes, and be able to make
representations, or have them made on his behalf about whether the order continues to be
necessary. The Registrant must inform the GDC in writing if he would like the interim order to
be reviewed at a hearing.
Even if the Registrant does not request a hearing, if there has been a material change of
circumstances that may mean the order should be revoked, varied or replaced, the Committee
will review the order at a hearing, at which the Registrant and any representative will be invited
to attend.
At any review, a future Committee has the power to revoke the order, confirm the order, or
may replace the order with an interim order for conditional registration.
That concludes this determination.

Page 3 of 3