Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Dtech13/232P
Practitioner: Simon John Devine
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Practising without a current practising certificate (Established)

Additional Orders:

Appeal Order:


Full Decision 555Dtech13232P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


A Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) charged that Mr Simon Devine, registered dental technician of Raglan (the Dental Technician) practised the profession of dental technology between 1 April 2012 and 20 April 2012 without a current practising certificate.


The Tribunal found the Dental Technician guilty of practising without a practising certificate and the charge was established.

Reason for Finding

The Tribunal considered the three elements required to be proven by the PCC in relation ot the charge were all proven as follows:

  1. That the Dental Technician was a registered dental technician which clearly established on the information in the Agreed Summay, and was not in dispute.
  2. That he practised as a dental technician during the period of the charge (1 - 20 April 2012).  The Dental Technician acknowledged that on 2, 3 and 4 April 2012 he completed two partial dentures.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the Dental Techncician did practise the profession of dental technology by carrying out work which was within the scope of practice for dental technology.
  3. His practising certificate expired on 31 March 2012, and a new practising certificate was not issued to him until 20 April 2012.

The Tribunal was satisfied it was unnecessay to prove an intention to flout professional obligations; nor is it an element of the offence that the practitioner knew or ought to have known of the absence of an APC.  However the Tribunal nonetheless referred to two matters which were raised by the Dental Technician.

  • The Dental Technician stated that he understood he would be regarded as having an APC as soon as he despatched it.  It was quite clear on the application form and the follow-up emails, that this was not the case.  In addition, the effect of section 30(3), provides that the operative date is the date of receipt of the application for renewal.  In any event, this understanding could only have been relevant as from 4 April (because the application form was not submitted until that date), and the Dental Technician acknowledged he was practising without a practising certificate prior to that date.
  • As regards the email reminders sent in the course of March, the Dental Technician stated that the email address held by the Dental Council was in fact his wife's email address.  However, he confirmed to the Tribunal that he had provided it to the Dental Council as his point of contact; and the Tribunal noted that his email address was recorded in the APC application unamended.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the three elements of the charge were made out, and the charge was accordingly established.


The Tribunal ordered that the Dental Technician;

  • be censured;
  • pay a fine of $500 and
  • pay costs of $1,750.00.

The Tribunal directed the Executive Officer to publish a copy of the this decision and a summary on the Tribunal's website.  The Tribunal further directed the Executive Officer to publish details of this decision in the newsletter of the Dental Council of New Zealand, and on the Dental Council's website.