- 24-hour Emergency Line: 0300 30 32 442
Written by: a Medico-Legal Expert
Reviewed by a Medico-Legal Expert
Published:
October 2026
Written by: a Medico-Legal Expert
Reviewed by a Medico-Legal Expert
Published:
October 2026
A general dental practitioner applied for inclusion in the NHS Dental Performers List, a step necessary for any dentist offering primary care in an NHS setting.
The dentist had been asked to apply by their practice manager; however, a disclosure issue arose in relation to an overseas conviction for Driving Under Influence (DUI) appearing on the clinician’s Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate. The clinician had been upfront to their practice manager regarding this conviction and they had not seen this as an issue but a minor indiscretion under a different jurisdiction.
Due to IT issues, the application was completed by the practice manager, however when the application was reviewed by NHS England (NHSE), concerns were raised that the conviction had not been declared on the form.
The clinician was contacted by an NHS clinical adviser who alleged dishonesty from our member , an encounter that our member described as distressing and intimidating, and that left them feeling as though they were being treated as a criminal.
Despite having supplied NHSE with a DBS certificate clearly showing the overseas conviction, NHSE referred the matter to a Performers List Decision Panel (PLDP). The panel questioned why the conviction had not been declared, suggesting that an omission had occurred and inviting the clinician to provide reflections or withdraw and resubmit the application.
Medical Defence Shield (MDS) was engaged to represent the clinician before the PLDP and NHSE.
MDS undertook a detailed review of the application process, correspondence, and the relevant legal framework spanning both international criminal and public jurisdictions.
At the end of this thorough review, MDS conclusion and advice to the members was that even if they had intentionally left the conviction off of their application, no actual omission had been made. In fact, under The National Health Service (Performers Lists) (England) Regulations 2013, regulation 4(5)(e), a conviction obtained overseas is only disclosable if the underlying offence would also constitute a criminal offence in England or Wales. The conviction in question would not have met that threshold given the differing evidential and legal standards in the foreign jurisdiction.
In addition, any accusation that the clinician had acted dishonestly would be baseless since they had indeed disclosed this on their DBS application and made a note to highlight such to their practice manager.
These points, in addition to the unjust treatment faced from the NHS clinical adviser, were raised to the PLDP who instead chose to comment on their “disappointment” at the clinician not providing a reflection on their seeming omission.
MDS considered the response from the PLDP unsatisfactory and escalated correspondence, highlighting said comments and their impact on the PLDP’s procedural irregularity in line with their adherence to principles of fairness, proportionality, and compliance, citing Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Following sustained representations from MDS, the PLDP (and subsequently NHSE) accepted our member’s submissions and granted conditional inclusion on the NHS Performers List. The panel accepted that there was no dishonesty and that the overseas matter did not amount to a criminal conviction requiring declaration under UK law.
MDS also advised the memberon potential next steps to challenge the overseas conviction entry on the DBS certificate itself, given concerns that the disclosure may not meet the UK threshold and could infringe privacy rights under the Data Protection Act and GDPR.
For clinicians, even when disclosures are not necessary to larger regulatory bodies, this case highlights that open and honest disclosure to employers or prospective working partners fosters trust and communication, key attributes of working in any healthcare setting. To note additionally, disclosures on a smaller level may be relied upon later when facing regulatory intervention.
MDS’s intervention ensured that the clinician’s reputation was protected, their application successfully concluded, and their transition into NHS practice achieved with fairness and due process. This highlights that early medico-legal advice can prevent procedural unfairness and ensure that public bodies act within the scope of their lawful authority.
Finally, whilst disclosure was not deemed necessary in this instance, this case also exemplifies that while senior practice members may assist with administrative submissions, clinicians remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of declarations and should review all documentation personally before submission.
If you’re facing a similar situation, don’t wait to seek support. Contact MDS as soon as possible to discuss your circumstances, our team will support you in making the best decision for you and your patients. Call our office on 0300 30 32 442 or email our case managers at [email protected] mentioning your membership number.
Not an MDS member? Get in touch and join today!
