Fitness to Practise Appeals update - Autumn 2025

This is an update on our fitness to practise appeals (so no publication to download). In the past few months (from July to September 2025).

Recent appeals

In the past few months, we have concluded five appeals of final fitness to practise decisions by the regulators we oversee. We have appealed these decisions based on our belief that they were insufficient to protect the public. 

The cases we have appealed cover a range of issues, including cases involving:

• a registrant who pursued an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable patient
• a registrant who mistreated a patient and falsified records
• a registrant who was convicted of theft and possession of a Class B drug and was also dishonest about it
• a registrant who made inappropriate comments to a colleague
• a registrant who failed to carry out various child safety checks and was also dishonest.

Find out more about these appeals below.

Appeals resolved by consent

The following appeals have been resolved by consent with the regulator and registrant.

Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)

A registrant who pursued a relationship with a vulnerable patient

This was an appeal against an NMC panel review decision to impose conditions for nine months with a review in respect of a nurse who had pursued a personal relationship with a patient with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and depression. The registrant had previously been suspended. We were concerned that even on the panel’s own assessment of insight, it was limited and insufficient and there remained a risk of repetition that had not diminished in the time since the incident. We were concerned that the panel did not properly apply the sanctions guidance or explain its decision and the actual conditions imposed did not provide any public protection. At a review hearing of the order, the registrant was struck off the NMC register. As a result, we agreed to withdraw this appeal, and a consent order was agreed between the parties.

A registrant who mistreated a patient and falsified records

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to suspend a registrant for 12 months (a suspension order). The registrant was found to have been rough in her handling of Patient A, had left him lying in urine and did not change his wet clothes and bedding, and then falsified his medical records. Further concerns were raised about the registrant’s record-keeping in respect of another patient, and that she made further false entries in their medical records. We were concerned that the sanction was not sufficient to protect the public, that the panel did not consider the sanctions guidance, failed to give proper reasons for its decision on the sanction, and erred in relation to the mitigating factors identified. We were also concerned over the panel’s lack of finding of misconduct in relation to a charge and that the decision on the registrant’s potential for remediation was irrational. The Court of Sessions granted the appeal in the terms set out in the joint minute, quashed the original panel decision and the registrant was struck off the NMC’s register.

A registrant who was convicted of theft and possession of a Class B drug and was also dishonest about it

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a Conditions of Practice order against the registrant for 12 months following a consensual panel determination (CPD) being agreed. In June 2022, the registrant was arrested for stealing dihydrocodeine (a Class B drug) from the hospital where he was working. The registrant subsequently admitted the theft and was given a Deferred Adult Simple Caution. This required the registrant to attend appointments with a substance misuse programme. The registrant was also subject to NMC undertakings for 12 months from January 2024. However, on 22 April 2024 the registrant was arrested again for theft of dihydrocodeine from the Hospital and admitted to having been stealing it for around three months. The registrant was convicted of theft and possession of a Class B drug in July 2024 and sentenced to an 18-month Community Order. The NMC’s undertakings were revoked and the case proceeded to a hearing. In response to the CPD, the Hospital raised concerns about the conditions proposed. We were concerned that there was a potential under-prosecution regarding a failure to bring charges in relation to dishonesty and the conviction, and that the Conditions of Practice order was not appropriate in the circumstances. A consent order was agreed in which the original decision was quashed and an eight-month suspension order with a review was imposed.

A registrant who made inappropriate comments to a colleague

This is an appeal against an NMC panel decision to find no case to answer in respect of a Duty Clinical Lead Nurse who made a number of highly inappropriate comments towards a colleague. We were concerned that the regulator had undercharged the case in that they failed to bring a separate charge that the comments were unprofessional, inappropriate or offensive, and that they amounted to harassment. The panel erred in accepting the NMC’s submission of no case to answer, taking an overly narrow focus on the allegations and failing to amend the charges. The appeal was allowed, the original decision to find no case to answer was quashed and remitted to a new panel with a new charge that the conduct alleged was unprofessional, inappropriate or offensive, and amounted to harassment. 

Social Work England

A registrant who failed to carry out various child safety checks and was also dishonest

This was an appeal against a panel decision to impose a 12-month suspension order with review in the case of a social worker who failed to carry out Child Protection, Child in Need and/or Cared for Child visits. The registrant also used a personal phone to communicate with families on their case list, failed to accurately record information, dishonestly recorded information, and dishonestly failed to inform Social Work England about their registration with Social Care Wales. We were concerned that the panel’s findings at both the facts and impairment stages were not reflected in the sanction. We were also concerned that the panel did not have appropriate regard to the sanctions guidance, and did not provide adequate reasons for its decision and departure from the guidance. A consent order was agreed in which the original decision on sanction was quashed and remitted to a new panel for a fresh decision.