PFD report

Barry Anthony LALL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Aug 2023•Central and South East Kent

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to limit publication of detailed undetermined allegations during interim proceedings
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Review the policy governing publication of Interim Order outcomes to balance open justice with registrants’ interests.

    Stated by General Dental CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 November 2023.
  2. Action

    Review guidance and arrangements governing whether Interim Order hearings are held in public or private.

    Stated by General Dental CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 November 2023.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Open-justice requirements, published interim-order reasons and discretion to hold hearings privately currently address transparency and registrant-protection concerns.

    Stated by General Dental CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to limit publication of detailed undetermined allegations during interim proceedings

Wider context from the report

“Whilst it is accepted that the public should have knowledge of concerns raised with regards to a registered dental practitioner, my concern is regarding the level of detail placed on the GDC website in respect of those concerns, particularly when a case is at a stage where the proceedings have not been concluded and the issues not yet determined one way or another. In this case the report ran to 7 pages and set out in detail the allegations made under the 'background section' and then further detail of the allegations by way of documenting the submissions made by the Counsel acting on behalf of the GDC. Whilst I accept that the report states in its preamble that "It is not the role of the IOC to make findings of fact in relation to any charge" the report detailed significant allegations, (which Mr Lall contested) which were undetermined by the GDC at that time. The report was then made available to the public via the GDC website. Given that this was an interim order only, my concern is whether the level of detail provided to the public at that stage of proceedings, was necessary or required. The family gave evidence at the inquest of Mr Lall that he was "an extremely private individual so the impact this had on his mental health was tremendous." By putting detailed allegations into the public domain via the GDC website, at a stage before any final determination has taken place, I am concerned that others going through a similar process may also suffer a detrimental effect to their mental health. Consequently, in my view, there exists a risk that future deaths will occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the policy governing publication of Interim Order outcomes to balance open justice with registrants’ interests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“in relation to our legal framework under review. Work to review the Guidance and the Policy and reviewing our position in relation to holding hearings in public had already been started by our Policy Team prior to receiving your report. Following the sad news of Mr Lall’s death and your Report, this work has been prioritised.”

Source location

Response from General Dental Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 November 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review guidance and arrangements governing whether Interim Order hearings are held in public or private.

Verbatim wording from the response

“in relation to our legal framework under review. Work to review the Guidance and the Policy and reviewing our position in relation to holding hearings in public had already been started by our Policy Team prior to receiving your report. Following the sad news of Mr Lall’s death and your Report, this work has been prioritised.”

Source location

Response from General Dental Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 November 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Open-justice requirements, published interim-order reasons and discretion to hold hearings privately currently address transparency and registrant-protection concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In pursuit of the overarching objective of public protection and of maintaining confidence in the professions it is important that the public can see where the GDC takes substantive action including, in the most serious cases, erasure and suspension. It is also important, particularly given the time it takes to get to a substantive hearing, that the public can see that immediate risks are addressed. The latter being undertaken through the IO process.”

Source location

Response from General Dental Council
Page 4 · response
Published 2 November 2023

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Changes to the statutory Rules cannot be implemented solely by the regulator and may take longer because approval is outside its full control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This work is reviewing the policy in relation to the publication of outcomes of IOs and, due to the overlapping nature of the issues involved, the position set out in the Rules in relation to holding IO hearings and the guidance provided to the panel in relation to holding hearings in public or private is also being reviewed. The aim of the review is to ensure that we are correctly balancing the public interest in open justice against the interests of the registrant, particularly when considering as yet untested allegations. The timeframe for completion of this work depends on the outcome of the review. In some circumstances public consultation to any changes that we may wish to make is required, which will inevitably mean a longer timeframe.”

Source location

Response from General Dental Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 November 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Any changes to the Rules require approval by the Privy Council and Parliament as a statutory instrument.

    Stated by General Dental CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Any changes to the Rules require approval by the Privy Council and Parliament as a statutory instrument.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If it were to become apparent that it would be desirable to make changes to the Rules, that is likely to take longer still and is not a process fully under our control. While the Rules themselves are made by our Council, they are subject to approval by the Privy Council and so can take effect only after having been approved by Parliament as a statutory instrument. We intend to complete the first stage of our review by early next year.”

Source location

Response from General Dental Council
Page 5 · response
Published 2 November 2023

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026