NHS England v Justin Yung Hui Chin

Hearing date: 11 February 2026 Attendance: Mr Peter Anderson (counsel for NHS England “NHSE”), Mr I Leslie (solicitor), Mrs K Kirkby (NHSE professional standards manager) Ms Iona Neeve (observer) Mr Anthony Haycroft (counsel for Mr Chin), and Mr Chin Tribunal: Judge Christopher Limb Mrs L Bromley Mr M Green Preliminary

1. This tribunal can make any decision which the Applicant could have made.

2. The issues in the application concern extension of the suspension of Mr Chin’s inclusion on the Dental Performers List (“DPL”) (the Applicant case) or the removal of the suspension and the imposition of conditions on his inclusion mirroring the conditions imposed by the General Dental Council (“GDC”) (the Respondent case). The Respondent does not contend for unconditional inclusion on the DPL.

3. This was a hearing upon submissions only and without any oral evidence.

4. We were provided with both a bundle and a supplemental bundle of written evidence and were also assisted by both written opening and oral closing submissions from both parties. The written evidence must be read in conjunction with this decision, and this decision contains only a summary of parts of it. Background/Evidence

5. Mr Chin qualified in 2013 and, until the events giving rise to this appeal, practised without concerns being raised about his conduct or behaviour, without any adverse findings by the GDC, and without any criminal charges or convictions. At the time of the allegation giving rise to this appeal he worked at Tetbury Dental Practice (“Tetbury”) as well as at Bristol Dental Hospital.

6. In July 2023 the GDC received a complaint from a patient at Tetbury who said that on 6 June 2023 she received a call to attend the following day at lunchtime for a radiograph. She attended on 7 June and alleged that Mr Chin saw her alone and on 3 occasions touched her on the hips and bottom and then kissed her on the lips. Fuller detail is at page E96 of the bundle as well as at other pages.

7. In August 2023 the GDC imposed 17 conditions upon practice which are at pages R34-8. Those conditions include a range of obligations to give information relating to and during any employment. Condition 7 has in particular been referred to in this appeal and requires a chaperone at all times when treating a patient. NHSE received an undertaking from Mr Chin on 23.7.23 to be chaperoned by a dental nurse or other member of staff when treating a patient 100% of the time. In August 2024 Mr Chin was charged by Gloucestershire Police with sexual assault. Having been informed of the charge but prior to receipt of any formal documentation the Performers List Decision Panel (“PDLP”) of the NHSE decided on 11.9.24 to maintain conditions upon inclusion in the DPL. On 9.10.24 and having received formal documentation the PDLP met again and decided to suspend Mr Chin from the DPL (letter at B29-32). That suspension has subsequently been reviewed and continued without opposition from Mr Chin until its most recent proposed extension which is the subject of this application. Mr Chin had been given a trial date of 10 November 2025. The trial was adjourned on the morning of the date fixed due to court unavailability and the trial date is now 30 November 2026. The Applicant seeks extension of the suspension to the end of 2026. The respondent opposes any extension of the suspension, contends that suspension is not necessary and contends that imposition of conditions is appropriate. Issues

8. Both parties confirmed on the final day of hearing that their positions remained as summarised above. Legal Principles

9. The Regulations are included in full within section C of the bundle and we do not set out full quotations within this decision.

10. Regulation 10 provides that conditions for the purpose of preventing prejudice to the efficiency of services may be imposed.

11. Regulation 12 provides that suspension may be ordered if “necessary” (so far as relevant in this case) “ for the protection of patients or that it is otherwise in the public interest” “while (NHSE) awaits the outcome of any criminal or regulatory investigation affecting the practitioner”.

12. We have been referred to various decided cases by both parties. We have read them all. They should be read in full for their full terms and context and the following is no more than a summary of some central aspects of some of those cases.

13. In Martinez v GDC [2015] EWHC 1223, the approach to disputed factual allegations in an interim hearing was considered. In paragraphs 17-19 it is said that if the allegations are credible the tribunal will have to proceed on the basis that they are true and that the task is one of risk assessment.

14. In Shiekh v GDC [2007] EWHC 2972, the principles when considering “necessary” were considered in paragraphs 15-6, in the specific context of public interest. It was concluded that “the bar is set high” for interim suspension, “necessity is an appropriate yardstick” and “because of reasons of proportionality”. It would be a relatively rare case where an interim suspension was ordered on the ground of public interest.

15. Sosanya v GMC [2009] EWHC 2814 was referred to in the context of the arguments that on the one hand it was appropriate to ask whether it would be thought acceptable not to suspend if in due course there is a conviction and on the other hand whether it would be thought acceptable to suspend if in due course there is an acquittal. Both considerations should form part of the thinking (paragraph 26).

16. There is no strict list of considerations when considering whether interim suspension is necessary. Each case must be considered on its own facts.

17. In general terms we must act reasonably, fairly and proportionately. Evidence

18. We have already summarised the allegation. The parties agree that it reaches the threshold such that we must assume it is true. We have already summarised the evidence of the history of this case and the decisions taken. We have read and take note of the witness statements. By way of gross summary, we note the glowing nature of character witnesses, both professional and personal. We note the statements of both Mr Chin and his wife, including the understandable financial and personal impact of inability to practise.

19. The case is decided upon the submissions and arguments Decision and Reasons

20. We proceed on the basis that the allegation of sexual assault is true. Mr Anderson contended that whilst not at the most serious end of the spectrum, it is serious and a crime and is deliberate impropriety. He refers to the NHS Policy on managing performers lists and examples which may necessitate suspension including cases where alleged offences involve sex or violence. Mr Haycroft drew attention in the same section of the policy to the statement that suspension should be considered as a last resort where risk cannot be managed by any other means. He accepts that the allegation is serious and that the threshold for action is passed but contends that appropriate conditions can manage the risk.

21. Mr Anderson contended that the criminal charge changed the risk profile because the CPS must have considered that the prospect of success was at least 51% and prosecution was in the public interest. Mr Haycroft contends that the risk is the risk of future harm to a patient and that that risk is unchanged if the allegation is assumed true. Mr Anderson contends that the delay in criminal trial date does not alter the risk profile, whilst Mr Haycroft says that it is a relevant factor when considering proportionality but more importantly (in effect) that our decision must be based upon our judgment today and not our view of the merits of previous decisions of either the GDC or PDLP or Mr Chin. We interpose that we do not consider ourselves bound by any previous decision, albeit giving respect to other professional bodies.

22. Mr Anderson contends that the absence of a chaperone (or at the least the presence of another person whether present in the role of chaperone or not) was contrary to professional guidance and is not disputed. Mr Haycroft contends that a formal condition carries greater weight and that the evidence of Lisa Harwood indicates that Tetbury did not routinely use chaperones for radiology/OPG (the relevant procedure) in June 2023 but does now.

23. Mr Anderson contends that the character references are of little help, whereas My Haycroft contends that they are one consideration in the overall judgment of proportionality.

24. Mr Anderson contends that the different role and rules of the GDC and NHSE (fitness to practise or fitness for purpose) are relevant and lessen the relevance of the GDC decision to impose conditions, whereas Mr Haycroft accepts the different roles but contends that in the context of the issues in this case there is little if any distinction in either protection of patients or the public interest.

25. Mr Anderson posed as relevant the question as to public interest and the public reaction if there was no suspension and in due course a conviction. Mr Haycroft contended that the reverse position was equally valid, namely the position if there was a suspension but an acquittal.

26. There was no dispute that the burden of satisfying us that a suspension is necessary is upon the Applicant, on the balance of probabilities.

27. We do not consider that there is one consideration which is determinative of the correct outcome, and neither party suggested to the contrary. They put different weight upon factors.

28. The fundamental requirement is that for suspension to be ordered, suspension must be “necessary” for either or both of the protection of patients or in the public interest. We must approach the case acting reasonably and proportionately.

29. Our following conclusions should not be read as though the various considerations are given in order of importance. They must be read as a whole.

30. The allegation of sexual assault is serious, and we conduct our risk assessment on the basis that it is found to be correct and true.

31. We do not consider that the GDC decision to manage by a condition is in any sense binding on us.

32. We accept that “necessary” is reflected in the proposition that suspension is a last resort where the risk cannot be effectively managed by other means. The management of risk is an important consideration.

33. There is no suggestion of misconduct other than on one occasion and no suggestion of any other criticism of practice. We therefore consider whether conditions are objectively sufficient to protect patients and in the public interest. In most if not all regards the public interest in this case is the public interest that patients should not harmed. Each case must be considered on its own facts. We do not discount other factors. The issues of public reaction if there is no suspension but conviction or if there is suspension but acquittal a. are relevant but largely counterbalance each other. We do not consider that Mr Chin’s reversal of his previous agreement to suspension is of any significant relevance, although from his perspective the timescale is doubtless important. We do not accept that the fact of a criminal charge was a major alteration of the risk of harm if the allegation was in any event to be investigated by the GDC or NHSE. We do not consider the delay in the date set for criminal trial to be a major factor. The positive character references are largely peripheral to our decision at this interim stage. All these factors as suggested by each party are relevant but not determinative.

34. The central issue is whether conditions do or not provide a sufficient safeguard for the protection of patients and the public interest. That is another way of asking whether suspension is necessary. Most of the GDC conditions and the earlier September 2024 NHSE conditions relate to keeping the GDC or the NHSE fully informed of his professional activity and preventing him from working single-handed and are in very similar wording. The one difference of more substance is NHS condition 7 which refers to a chaperone being a dental nurse or another member of staff, whereas condition 6 of the GDC conditions refers to a GDC registrant who is approved by the GDC.

35. The fundamental safeguard is that Mr Chin does not practise alone and without a chaperone. It is not reasonably foreseeable that there would be a risk to patients or public interest if that safeguard (together with the other conditions) is in place. We do not consider that there is a reasonable and proportionate requirement for suspension or that it is necessary if appropriate conditions are in place. We do consider that a requirement for a GDC registrant to be the chaperone is an extra safeguard, which is both reasonable and proportionate and adds further security because that registrant would put their own registration at risk if they did not carry out their chaperone duties diligently.

36. We do not uphold the application for suspension. The NHSE conditions ordered in September 2024 shall be imposed upon Mr Chin’s inclusion in the DPL, but with the first sentence of condition 7 worded “You must have a chaperone with you at all times when with a patient and keep a log detailing the chaperone. The chaperone must be a GDC registrant”. Order

37. The application for extension of suspension is refused. There shall be conditions upon Mr Chin’s inclusion in the DPL as set out in paragraph 36 above. Tribunal Judge:Judge Christopher Limb Date Issued: 26 February 2026