- Dentist removed over “Indian dentistry” remarks wins appeal
- Judge rules misconduct was serious but not permanent in nature
- Six-month suspension replaces full erasure from register
A UK dentist struck off over racially charged remarks about an “Indian company” has been allowed to return to the profession, after the High Court ruled that her conduct, while serious, did not justify a permanent ban. The case involving Hanna Grzelczak is likely to raise questions around professional misconduct, proportional punishment and how regulators assess intent and rehabilitation.
Grzelczak, who had been removed from the register by the General Dental Council in September 2025, challenged the decision and secured a reduced penalty. The court instead imposed a six-month suspension, allowing for the possibility of her return to practice.
When words crossed the line
The case centers on a series of emails sent by Grzelczak to Damira Dental Studios, in Fareham, Hampshire, where she was a self-employed associate dentist. In 2023, she asked for her name to be removed from their practice website.
In those emails, she made comments about not wanting to be associated with what she described as “Indian dentistry”, adding that such a connection was “a shame”, as quoted in a news report. The messages also drew comparisons between what she called “Indian implants” and “German technology”.
Following a complaint, the regulator brought multiple charges, describing the language as “unprofessional, inappropriate and racially motivated”, reportedly said during proceedings. Grzelczak admitted the allegations in full at a disciplinary hearing.
The GDC panel concluded that her actions breached core professional standards, particularly the expectation to treat others with respect. It argued that the nature of the remarks pointed to a deeper attitudinal issue, leading to her being struck off.
Not beyond repair, says court
However, the High Court took a different view on the appropriate sanction. Mr Justice Siddique acknowledged that the comments were offensive and racially motivated but suggested they were made in anger rather than reflecting a fixed or ingrained belief.
The judge noted that Grzelczak had accepted wrongdoing early, admitting she used “irrational, racist words” to express frustration, as quoted in a news report. He went on to say that while the emails were clearly inappropriate, they did not meet the threshold for permanent removal from the profession.
Instead, the court found that a suspension would be a more proportionate response. The ruling effectively replaces the earlier decision with a six-month ban, after which she may be eligible to return to work.
The outcome leaves open a wider debate about where regulators draw the line between misconduct that ends a career and behaviour that, while serious, can be addressed through sanctions short of erasure.
