Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
GDC panel erases dental nurse Harpreet Kundola over perverting course of justice conviction
The GDC's Professional Conduct Committee has erased dental nurse and orthodontic therapist Harpreet Kaur Kundola from the register after finding her fitness to practise impaired by a 2024 conviction for conspiring to pervert the course of public justice, with an immediate suspension imposed.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 May 2026 · Updated 9 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 9 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Harpreet Kaur Kundola, dental nurse (General Dental Council 109999).
Decision date: 13 May 2026 · Hearing started 11 May 2026 and ended 13 May 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that dental nurse and orthodontic therapist Harpreet Kaur Kundola should be erased from the register. The Professional Conduct Committee found her fitness to practise impaired by her 2024 conviction at Leeds Crown Court for conspiring to pervert the course of public justice, for which she received a suspended prison sentence. The panel said her behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and suspended her registration immediately pending the appeal period.
Charges
That being a registered dental care professional: (1) on 15 April 2024 she was convicted at the Crown Court sitting in Leeds of conspiring to pervert the course of public justice between 6 and 9 September 2020, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and (2) she failed to immediately notify the General Dental Council that she had been charged on 9 December 2022 with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Both facts were admitted and found proved. Her part in the conspiracy involved fabricating false claims that she was receiving threatening telephone calls from the victim; she was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months, 200 hours of unpaid work, 12 rehabilitation activity days and a 10-year restraining order.
Findings
The Committee found that her failure to notify the GDC of her criminal charge, a delay of four to five days, was not so serious as to amount to misconduct. It determined that her fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her conviction, finding her insight into her offending remained limited, that it could not be confident the risk of repetition was unlikely, and that public confidence in the dental profession would be seriously undermined without a finding of impairment. Concluding that the behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and that suspension would be insufficient, it directed erasure from the register and imposed an immediate suspension order covering the 28-day appeal period. The interim order was revoked.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Her previous good character, with no previous convictions and no fitness to practise history before the GDC; positive testimonials regarding her previous good character and her good conduct since her conviction in 2024; no evidence of any repeat offending; evidence of her apology in her written reflections, including for the harm caused to the victim.
Aggravating factors
Actual harm was caused to a member of the public, the victim; the premeditated nature of the conduct that led to her conviction, being a conspiracy which inherently involved some level of planning; her part in the conspiracy was sustained over a period of two days; a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the GDC and the systems regulating the professions; the inference arising from her apparent unwillingness to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.