Teeth Whitening Prosecutions

In recent years there has been a surge in the number of people seeking to brighten their smile by having teeth whitening treatment.

A lot of people are under the impression that such treatments are entirely cosmetic and can therefore be performed by beauty therapists. Indeed there are several teeth whitening training courses specifically targeted at those working in the beauty industry.

In actual fact a High Court ruling (GDC v Jamous [2013] EWHC 1428) has confirmed that teeth whitening is the practise of dentistry and can only be performed by dental practitioners correctly registered by the General Dental Council (GDC).

The GDC is pretty ruthless when it comes to prosecuting teeth whitening practitioners without the correct qualifications and registration. The Council's interest is two fold: firstly it wants to protect the livelihoods of the (impoverished) registered dental practitioners that line its coffers; secondly it wants to safeguard public health by preventing laypeople from using potentially dangerous chemicals in the mouths of their customers.

The bleaching agents used by beauty therapists, which often contain hydrogen peroxide, are many times stronger than those found in over the counter teeth whitening kits. The Council is seriously concerned that a customer being treated by a layperson could have a severe allergic reaction to those chemicals and the layperson in question would not have the medical wherewithal to deal with the situation.

The Dentists Act 1984 creates the following offences:

• Section 38 of the Act makes it a criminal offence for anyone who is not registered with the GDC to practise dentistry or to offer or imply they are prepared to practise dentistry.
• Section 37 of the Act explains that practising dentistry means providing or offering to provide the treatment, advice or attendance that would usually be given or performed by a dentist.
• Section 39 of the Act makes it a criminal offence for anyone who is not registered with the GDC to take or use various protected dental titles, such as 'dentist', 'dental nurse', 'dental hygienist' 'dental technician' or to imply that they are a registered dental professional.
• Sections 40 and 41 of the Act sets out that it is a criminal offence for an individual who is not registered with the GDC to receive payment for dental treatments or advice.

These are summary offences which can only be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court. The maximum penalty for these offences is an unlimited fine. It would be entirely reasonable to say that most defence advocates are unfamiliar with this particular legislation. There are no Sentencing Guidelines when it comes to imposing penalties for these offences, so Magistrates' tend to be guided by whatever the GDC prosecutor infers.

A recent prosecution in the Scottish Sheriff Court has brought the topic of illegal teeth whitening back into focus.

Brenda McFadyen, from Clydebank, was fined £1,000 after she pled guilty to the illegal practice of dentistry at Glasgow Sheriff Court last month. The first she knew of the legislation, so she says, was when the police knocked on her door earlier this year.

As chance would have it, I observed the GDC prosecuting a case in England earlier this year. In that case a beauty therapist, who was a sole trader with her own business, made it known on Facebook that she was willing to perform teeth whitening treatments. The GDC picked up on the advert and sent an email warning her that teeth whitening was the practise of dentistry and she would be committing an offence if she continued to do so.

A couple of months later the GDC received a report from the local council trading standards office that the lady in question, who had attended one of these unaccredited teeth whitening training courses, was still offering the service.

An undercover GDC investigator got in touch with the beauty therapist, posing as a teeth whitening customer. An appointment was arranged and the investigator, along with a partner, travelled several hundred miles from London to attend. On arrival at the appointment the investigators played along with the beauty therapist until it was clear that she was about to begin the procedure. It was at that point that they identified themselves as GDC investigators and left the premises.

The case was heard at the local Magistrates' Court and the facts outlined exactly as described above. The lady in question admitted the offence and was fined, if memory serves, £1,000. There was an audible gasp in the courtroom when the GDC prosecutor asked for £1,000 towards prosecution costs, explaining that the investigation had required several long train journeys and hours of background work. The bench actually ordered a partial contribution towards costs of £400. Remember that there are no Sentencing Guidelines for offences under the Dental Act 1984, so the court has to make a gut decision when sentencing.

The message is that if you're wanting your teeth whitened, you should ensure that you choose a dental practitioner correctly registered with the GDC. You can check the registration of dental practitioners here.

Five Times Over Driver Jailed

A Lowestoft man has been jailed after mounting the pavement in his car when five times over the drink drive limit.

Martin Bolton, 59, was jailed for four months after failing a police breath test in Lowestoft on Sunday.

He pleaded guilty at Norwich Magistrates' Court to drink-driving.

District Judge Nicholas Watson said no drink-driver had previously appeared before him having had such a high level of alcohol in their system.

Judge Watson said the custodial term was due to the "gravity" of the offence, with the police saying that as a driver the amount he had drunk was "ridiculous".

Bolton provided a specimen containing 184 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes.

The court heard how the defendant, of North Denes in Lowestoft, was spotted by police driving "incredibly slowly" along Yarmouth Road in the town just before 9.30 pm.

He then went along Jubilee Way where he mounted the kerb and the pedestrian had to leap out of way of his BMW 316.

Prosecutor Nicola Pope, said Bolton had been banned from driving for 30 months in 1998.

In mitigation, Annette Hall said he knew he should not have got into his car and was "mortified" and "ashamed" by his actions.

He has an alcohol problem and had suffered a bereavement, while his marriage had also broken up and he had lost his home, said Ms Hall.

Bolton was also handed a three-year driving ban and ordered to pay a £115 victim surcharge.

Afterwards Insp Chris Hinitt, of Norfolk and Suffolk police's roads unit, said the amount he had drunk was "ridiculous".

"In 20 years... that is the most I've ever heard someone being over the limit," he said.

Police Get Tough on Moped Criminals

Moped and motorcycle criminals will be targeted "at every opportunity", even when they ride dangerously, discard their helmets and disguise themselves, the head of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Venice Team has said.

Footage released by the Met, shown below, demonstrates the use of tactical contact between police vehicles and fleeing moped and motorcycle criminals.

Reading around it appears there is widespread public support for the police using tougher tactics against moped criminals. The Government has also come out in support of these tactics.

Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, said: "Risk-assessed tactical contact is exactly what we need. Criminals are not above the law."

Going against the grain, Diane Abbott MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, posted the following tweet in response: "Knocking people off bikes is potentially very dangerous. It shouldn't be legal for anyone. Police are not above the law."

An official Met Twitter account (@MPSCamden) replied: "Someone who's responsible for law-making (or at least debating and ratifying new legislation) should probably realise that using tactical contact to terminate dangerous pursuits is entirely within our lawful power. And our responsibility."

Ouch.

From a legal perspective the police's actions are supported by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which states the following: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Until now the police were generally reluctant to use tactical contact against moped and motorcycle criminals, fearing litigation and reprisals if such a criminal was injured during a pursuit. But with a ten-fold increase in moped crimes in the last 3 years - many of them involving the threat of violence and weapons - the gloves are now off.

Latest year-on-year figures for moped crime show that in January 2017 to October 2017 there were 19,455 offences across London compared to January 2018 to October 2018 when there were 12,419 offences (7,036 fewer offences) - a fall of 36 per cent.

Latest year-on-year figures for theft of mopeds show that in January 2017 to October 2017 there were 12,192 offences across London compared to January 2018 to October 2018 when there were 8,261 offences (3,931 fewer offences) - a reduction of 32 per cent.

Commander Amanda Pearson of Frontline Policing, said: "The Met is at the forefront of tackling moped and motorcycle crime and I am pleased to see that we have seen a reduction in offences. However, we are not complacent and we will continue to work tirelessly across London to maintain this downward trend.

"Operation Venice can call on all manner of tactics from an experienced investigation team to police helicopters to tackle and arrest offenders.

"There is a perception that if you remove your helmet or fail to stop for police when requested to do so we will not take any further course of action. This is untrue.

"The public quite rightly expects us to intervene to keep London safe. Our highly trained police drivers weigh up the risks and decide upon the most appropriate tactics in those circumstances.

"Offenders on mopeds and motorcycles who attempt to evade the police are making a choice that puts themselves and others at risk.

"So our message is clear: we can, we will and we do target those involved in moped and motorcycle crime at every opportunity."

Police Officer Convicted of Drink Driving and Carrying Knife

A Humberside police officer has been convicted of drink driving and carrying a knife in a public place.

PC Jamie Tyler-Jones, from Grimsby, was stopped by uniformed colleagues as he drove a Ford Mondeo on a public bridleway in Aylesby near Laceby on 18th October 2017.

Due to his demeanour the officers had cause to require Tyler-Jones to provide a roadside specimen of breath, which provisionally indicated he was over the drink drive limit. He was arrested and taken to a police station where he provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 87 mcg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, which exceeded the prescribed limit of 35 mcg.

On the same occasion Tyler-Jones was found in possession of a lock knife, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Tyler-Jones was sentenced for both offences at Grimsby Magistrates' Court, having earlier pleaded guilty.

He was fined a total of £300 and disqualified from driving for 20 months. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 and costs of £150.

A Humberside Police misconduct panel will convene at the Old Magistrates Court in Goole at 1 pm on Tuesday, 4th December 2018.

Update: Tyler-Jones was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed from Humberside Police with immediate effect.