Review of decisions
Under section 27A(11) or 36O(11) of the Act and Rule 6D of the Rules, the case examiners can review their decision to issue a warning if:
- an application for review is made by the dental professional subject to the warning
- a request has been made by the registrar.
In reviewing a decision, the case examiners will consider if there is evidence that:
- the original decision to issue a warning was incorrect
- new information received shows that it was not appropriate to issue a warning.
Under section 27A(8) and section 36O(8) of the Act and Rule 6E of the Rules, if an application to review the decision is made by:
- the registrant involved
- the informant, or
- the registrar.
the case examiners may also review a decision to refer an allegation to a Practice Committee. The case examiners may also review a decision when referred back to them by the Practice Committee in question.
The case examiners will then decide if the referral should be:
- maintained, or
- the matter referred to a different practice committee.
In making this decision, they will consider if there is a real prospect that the allegation in the case could be proved and that, if proven, it would suggest that the registrant's ability to practise as a dental professional is affected.
Finally, under section 27(6A) and 36N(6A) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Rules, the case examiners may review a decision where they decided that an allegation (or part of an allegation) should be closed and not referred to a Practice Committee.
In reviewing this decision, the case examiners will consider if the original decision was, for any reason, incorrect or if there is new information which would probably (on the balance of probabilities) have led to a different decision.