Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Dtech13/233P
Practitioner: Carl Tracey Stokes
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Practising without a current practising certificate (Established)

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Practitioner granted interim name suppression



Name Suppression to Practitioner

Practitioner declined permanent name suppression


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 556Dtech13233P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


A Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) charged that Mr Carl Tracey Stokes, registered Dental Technician and Clinical Dental Technician, formerly of Waikanae now in Australia (the Dental Technician) practised the profession of dental technology between 1 April 2012 and 27 April 2012 without a current practising certificate.


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

Reason for Finding

The Tribunal considered the three elements which were required to be proven by the PCC were all established as follows:

  1. It was clear that the Dental Technician held registration as a dental technician since 17 November 2000 and as a clinical dental technician since 5 December 2005.  Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Restricted Activities) Order 2005, clinical procedures involved in the insertion and maintenance of fixed and removable orthodontic or oral or maxillofacial prosthetic appliances fall within the definition of "restricted activities".  A person may not perform that activity unless he or she is a health practitioner who is permitted by his or her scope of practice to perform that activity.  Accordingly, in order to conduct those activities, a practitioner must be registered, as Mr Stoke was.  Therefore, the first element was established.
  2. The Dental Technician practised as a dental technician and clinical dental technician in the period 1-27 April 2012.  There was direct evidence from a witness who confirmed that in the week 16-20 April that the Dental Technician definitely came into the surgery and was seeing patients in that period.  The Tribunal found that the Dental Technician saw multiple patients in that week; and that it was probable he also saw other patients across the period of the charge.  Therefore, the second element was established.
  3. The evidence confirmed that the Dental Technician's previous APC expired on 31 March 2012; and that a completed APC application form was not received by the Dental Council until 26 April 2012.  For the period the Dental Technician did not hold an APC.  Therefore, the third element was established.


The Tribunal ordered the Dental Technician:

  • Be censured
  • Pay a fine of $1,500.00; and
  • Pay costs of $19,000.00

The Tribunal directed the Executive Officer to publish a copy of 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.