R v Richardson (Diane) [1999] QB 444

• A dentist was suspended from practice by the General Dental Council but continued to treat people under the pretence that he was still allowed to practice.

• He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm since, in the absence of consent, his acts constituted such an assault.

• CA acquitted him since fraud only vitiated consent where it was used to conceal the identity of the person (e.g. in an Australian case a man fraudulently caused a woman to believe that they were married and she only had sex with him on that basis - he was acquitted of rape) or the nature of the act. Fraud in this case did neither.

• CA rejected an argument that someone’s qualifications were a part of their identity.

  • This is wrong: in this case the relevant aspect (disqualification) was a part of the dentist’s identity since the patients wouldn’t have allowed him to operate on them had they known of his disqualification.

  • Indeed in accepting a professional’s services the ONLY aspect of their identity that is of concern is their qualification/competence. Hence the court construes “identity” too narrowly. 

RELATED CASES

• R v Tabassum