A Shipley dental nurse has been struck off by the General Dental Council for “sustained and deliberate dishonesty” and “violent criminal conduct”.

Gurvinder Lall, who was based at Wellcroft Dental Practice in Thomas Duggan House, run by his uncle, now has 28 days to appeal.

Lall was not present at the GDC hearing, which heard a number of charges against him including being convicted of violence while a qualified dental nurse.

Lall was jailed for six months in April last year when aged 26 for two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm relating to his part in assaulting two men outside the Queen’s Hotel in Leeds after an 80th birthday party.

He was one of three men jailed for group violence. The two victims, who had been on a night out in Leeds, had tried to intervene after seeing an apparent family disagreement between two groups of Asians leaving the hotel before being set upon themselves.

The hearing also found when Lall had applied for a place on an Orthodontic Therapy Course in May 2012 at the University of Central Lancashire, he had not registered with the General Dental Council despite registration being a course entry requirement.

And he had knowingly not told the university he was unregistered at the time of his interview and by the start of the course because it would block him.

However, the hearing committee was satisfied that, while at the Shipley practice in July 2012 and still unregistered, he had only been an observer. He registered with the GDC for the first time in August 2012.

Lall’s uncle, who was practice principal and also has a clinic in Harley Street, London, told them his nephew only passed protective glasses to a patient and passed him a tray of instruments while being mentored.

A statement from the GDC’s Professional Conduct Committee said: “In relation to Mr Lall’s convictions, he engaged in two acts of violence whilst a qualified dental professional. The committee saw no evidence of remediation.

“The committee determined that in all of the circumstances there is a risk that Mr Lall’s criminal actions that led to his convictions might be repeated.

“In all of the circumstances, involving as they do sustained and deliberate dishonesty and violent criminal conduct of such severity that the sentencing judge saw fit to remove him from the public domain for a period in the interests of public safety, the committee concluded that it would not be sufficient to suspend Mr Lall’s registration.

“It determined that the matters in this case are sufficiently serious that it is necessary for the protection of the public and in the public interest to erase Mr Lall’s name from the register.”