Reserved judgment — performing restricted activity when not permitted — falsely suggesting to be health practitioner — unauthorised dental work — necessity — economic necessity — “calculated to” — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, ss 7(2) & 9(4) — Crimes Act 1961, s 20 — Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 74 — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Restricted Activities) Order 2005 — Ministry of Health v Dawson DC Nelson CRI-2008-043-003385, 27 January 2011 — Ministry of Health v Pitt [2021] NZHC 2357 — Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [1971] 1 Ch 734 — Ministry of Health v Brooks DC Waitakere CRI-2008-090-010243, 31 March 2010. The defendant faced six charges of performing a restricted activity while not permitted to do so, and one of saying or doing something to suggest that she was a clinical dental technician when she was not. She had run a business making dentures for members of the public when not qualified to do so. The defendant argued that making dentures did not involve clinical procedures, and therefore was not a restricted activity under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Alternatively, she argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges and also that what she had done was covered by the defence of necessity. An expert clinical dental technology witness testified that the dentures designed by the defendant were not safe for use and that her business premises lacked proper hygiene. There was also evidence from several of the defendant's former clients, some of who were satisfied with her work and some of who were not. The Court found that there was enough evidence to support the charges, and also that supplying dentures fell within the definition of clinical procedures. The defence of necessity did not cover situations where a defendant was providing a commercial service that they were prohibited from providing; in any case, there was no evidence to show that the defendant's clients did in fact go to her because they had no other option. Finally, the Court found that by becoming a service supplier for WINZ and sending quotes to WINZ, the defendant had done something to falsely suggest that she was a clinical dental technician. All of the charges against the defendant were proved. Judgment Date: 21 June 2023