Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year
Added to MedicWatch: 8 July 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Paul Jeremy Brown, dentist (General Dental Council 65549).
Decision date: 22 June 2026 · Hearing started 1 June 2026 and ended 22 June 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that dentist Paul Brown's fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct and suspended him for 12 months, with immediate effect and a review. The Professional Conduct Committee found serious clinical failings with two patients, dishonesty in a letter to patients and in NHS claims made under his performer number for another dentist's work, racially motivated conduct in requiring a colleague to anglicise her name, and offensive language and humiliating behaviour towards colleagues.
Charges
It was alleged that Mr Brown failed to provide an adequate standard of care, record keeping and informed consent for two patients, including root canal treatment and a seven-unit bridge without sufficient radiographs and an apicectomy without a pre-operative radiograph; failed to maintain adequate processes to remove out-of-date Midazolam from the emergency drug box, putting patient safety at risk; sent patients a letter incorrectly stating a colleague had stolen data and been dismissed; published incorrect statements on his practice website; failed to treat colleagues with respect, including insisting a colleague anglicise her name, repeated comments about a colleague's size, shouting at staff, and a demeaning belt incident in front of a patient; made offensive comments including a racial slur in front of patients and a derogatory remark about gay people; and submitted NHS claims under his performer number for treatment carried out by a dentist not on the NHS performers list. Elements of the conduct were alleged to be misleading, dishonest, offensive, racially motivated or homophobic.
Findings
The Committee found serious clinical failings for both patients, falling far below the expected standard, and that the expired Midazolam put patient safety at risk. It found the letter about Colleague A misleading, and dishonest in stating he had been dismissed when he had resigned; the website statements were misleading but not dishonest and did not amount to misconduct. The conduct towards Colleague B in requiring her to anglicise her name was found offensive and racially motivated. The use of a racial slur in front of patients was found deeply offensive, though not racially motivated. Comments about Colleague C's size, shouting at colleagues and the belt incident were found disrespectful and humiliating. The NHS claims submitted under his performer number for Colleague F's treatment were found dishonest. The 'poofs' comment was offensive but not homophobic and fell away. Fitness to practise was found impaired on public protection and public interest grounds. The Committee directed a 12-month suspension with a review and imposed an immediate suspension order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Previous good character; apology and apparent remorse; extensive admissions to much of the charge; compliance with interim conditions; no evidence of repetition; the passage of time since the index events.
Aggravating factors
Actual harm or risk of harm to patients and colleagues; premeditated serious dishonesty towards the NHS; a corresponding disregard for the NHS systems governing the profession; misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time; clinical failings occurring after a previous warning from the Case Examiners about similar matters.
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.