Bahareh Zahiri-Dastjerdi
Introduction
Bahareh Zahiri-Dastjerdi is a UK dental nurse who was registered with the General Dental Council (GDC) under number 164368, with the NVQ Level 3 in Oral Health Care: Dental Nursing & Independent Assessment (City & Guilds, 2008). In January 2023, a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the GDC erased her from the register — struck her off — after finding proved a single charge: that on 26 April 2021 she received a police caution for possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The police caution related to an incident in November 2020 when she showed a video containing child pornography to a colleague at work. The Committee found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of the caution, directed erasure as the only proportionate sanction, and made an immediate suspension order covering the 28-day appeal period. She was not present at the remote hearing on 26 and 27 January 2023 and was not represented.
Background Information
Zahiri-Dastjerdi qualified as a dental nurse in 2008 and was working as a registered dental care professional at the time of the events. On 6 November 2020, she showed a video to a colleague in the reception area at her place of work. She deleted the video after the event, so no copy could be produced at the hearing, but the Committee had a description of it from the people interviewed during an internal investigation by her employer: the video was of a young woman described as in her early 20s and a very young boy estimated to be about four years old, and it included indecent content.
Following that internal investigation, and a disciplinary hearing on 22 December 2020, she was dismissed from the employment. Her employer referred her to the GDC on 18 January 2021 — before the police investigation into the matter. On 26 April 2021 she received the police caution for possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; the Committee noted that the giving of a police caution is dependent on the defendant’s admission of the offence in question, and that she had never suggested in correspondence that she did not receive it.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The charge was found proved on the balance of probabilities by a GDC Professional Conduct Committee on documentary evidence, including a Police National Computer printout of the caution. A police caution is an admitted criminal matter — it requires an admission of the offence — but it is not a criminal conviction. The Committee found there was no evidence of any sexual motivation, a point it listed in mitigation.
The incident at the heart of the case involved three colleagues: the colleague to whom Zahiri-Dastjerdi initially showed the video, another colleague to whom the video was subsequently passed, and a third who refused to watch it and told her to delete it. All three described the impact on them of having been shown or made aware of the video. One colleague referred to her own personal history and explained that Zahiri-Dastjerdi’s behaviour had had a significant effect on her. Another considered there had been an element of naivety on Zahiri-Dastjerdi’s part, telling the investigation: “what shocked me was that she thought it was normal to show people”.
In her own interview as part of the internal investigation, Zahiri-Dastjerdi described the video as “disgusting” and said she had only shown it to a colleague to highlight how horrible people could be, and that you could not trust anyone to look after your children. She said she was advised by colleagues to delete the video from her phone, which she did — but she then questioned their motives for reporting the incident in light of that advice, stating that she believed colleagues were trying to oust her from her job. She said she had received the video from a friend but appeared reluctant to provide any other details.
She did not attend the hearing. Notice sent to her registered address by Special Delivery was delivered on 16 December 2022 and signed for in the printed name “ZAHIRI DASTJERDI”, and a copy attached to a secure email was downloaded. The GDC offered IT assistance and possible financial assistance for childcare to enable her participation. In her last email before the hearing, dated 19 January 2023, she wrote: “I have downloaded the documents that you have sent it to me. As I have said before I don’t have any more support documents to provide and unfortunately I don’t have any one to witness or representative for my case. And because [REDACTED] I wouldn’t be able to present the hearing. I would like to confirm that the hearing can go ahead behalf my attendance please”. The Committee found her absence voluntary and proceeded under Rule 54 of the GDC (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2006.
Public Reaction and Consequences
On impairment, the Committee said the behaviour was serious: she was in possession of child pornography which she showed to a colleague at work in a public area, and which was passed on to another colleague; the description of the video was grave in nature, and her actions had a particularly distressing effect on one colleague. The only evidence of her insight came from the late-2020 internal investigation, and her recognition of wrongdoing only became apparent when she became aware of the consequences for herself — she appeared to blame her colleagues for raising the concern. Having engaged no further, she produced no evidence of reflection or remediation in the two years since, and the Committee found a reasonable risk of repetition. Impairment was found necessary for the protection of the public — including the dental team — and in the wider public interest, bearing in mind the victims of child pornography and that possessing and viewing such material creates a market for abusive images.
On sanction, the Committee identified mitigation — no fitness to practise history, an early admission to the offence, a degree of insight at the material time in deleting the video when asked, no evidence of any sexual motivation, and a single isolated incident — but held the aggravating factors far outweighed it: actual harm and a risk of harm to others, breach of the trust placed in her as a professional person, the involvement of a vulnerable individual given that the video featured a young child, and her very limited insight. A reprimand would not be sufficient; conditions could not be made workable for matters of attitude and behaviour; and even the maximum 12-month suspension would not be sufficient or proportionate. Applying paragraph 6.34 of the GDC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance — serious departures from professional standards, serious harm to another, abuse of trust and violation of the rights of the child seen in the video, findings of a sexual nature involving child pornography, and a persistent two-year lack of insight — and paragraph 78, which states that “any involvement in child pornography by a GDC registrant should lead the committee to consider whether erasure is the only proportionate sanction”, the Committee concluded her behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and that erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Current Status
Zahiri-Dastjerdi has been erased from the GDC register — struck off. The Committee announced its determination on 27 January 2023, and the public outcome summary records that on that day “the Professional Conduct Committee made an order to erase Ms Zahiri-Dastjerdi from the register and ordered that their registration be suspended immediately”. Unless she exercised her right of appeal, the erasure would take effect 28 days from deemed service of the direction; the immediate suspension order covers that appeal period and would remain in place until the resolution of any appeal. The interim order previously in place on her registration was revoked.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The erasure ended Zahiri-Dastjerdi’s registration as a dental nurse, a profession she had been part of since qualifying in 2008, on top of the dismissal that followed the December 2020 disciplinary hearing. The Committee took into account the consequences for her of not being able to work in her chosen profession, but was satisfied that the need to protect the public interest outweighed her own. Its findings — a police caution for possession of an indecent photograph of a child, harm and distress to colleagues, and a persistent lack of insight over the two years between the incident and the hearing — stand on the record, and unless she successfully appealed, she may no longer work as a dental nurse in the UK.