Fitness to Practise Appeals Update - Spring 2026

This is an update on our fitness to practise appeals (so no publication to download) from January to April 2026.

Recent appeals

In the past few months, we have concluded six 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 dispensed incorrect medication and took a number of steps to conceal her errors
• a registrant who misrepresented her level of experience and competency 
• a registrant who misappropriated their employer’s fund and posted misleading information on social media
• a registrant who ill-treated vulnerable residents in a care home
• a registrant subject to allegations of serious sexual misconduct with a colleague
• a registrant who behaved inappropriately and in a sexually motivated way towards six colleagues as well as subjected colleagues to harassment related to race.

Appeals resolved by consent

Nursing and Midwifery Council

An appeal involving a nurse who incorrectly dispensed medication, was dishonest about it and also removed medication from her workplace to disguise her errors

This was an appeal against a NMC panel decision to impose a 12-month suspension order against a nurse working in a care home who under-administered medication to a patient receiving palliative care and made inaccurate entries into the clinical record, in a deliberate and dishonest attempt to conceal her errors. It was also alleged that the registrant removed medication from the care home without clinical justification and to disguise her errors. 

We were concerned that the panel was wrong to characterise the misconduct as a “moment of panic” rather than indicative of deep-seated attitudinal concerns, that they failed to have proper regard to the NMC’s sanctions guidance, they were wrong on assessment of the prospect of remediation and wrong on proportionality. They also failed to give adequate reasons. A consent order was agreed between the parties with the sanction decision being quashed and substituted with a striking off order. 

An appeal involving a registrant who misrepresented her level of experience, training/qualification and was not competent to perform her role

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a six-month suspension order against the registrant. The registrant was found to have misrepresented her level of experience, training and/or qualification when applying for a General Radiographer role as an international application as well as lacking basic competency to perform her role. 

We were concerned over the panel’s lack of finding that the registrant misrepresented her English language proficiency when applying to join the HCPC register and their lack of findings that she acted dishonestly. A consent order was agreed between the parties replacing a suspension order with a striking off order.

Recent Court hearings

General Dental Council

Lord An appeal involving an associate dentist who posted misleading claims on social media as well as concerns around misappropriation of monies, clinical practice and record-keeping

This is a case in which the registrant was working as an Associate Dentist at Company A. Concerns were raised about the registrant’s clinical practice, record-keeping, advertising (in that the registrant referred to himself on his social media page as a ‘Dental Practice Owner’ for a period of time), and concerns that he had received payments for treatment directly from patients and misappropriated monies from Company A. 

We were concerned that a six-month suspension order without a review imposed by the panel was not sufficient for the protection of the public, that they had made a number of material errors, and failed to give adequate reasons.  However, the Court did not uphold our concerns and dismissed the appeal.

General Medical Council

An appeal involving a registrant who behaved inappropriately and in a sexually motivated way towards six colleagues as well as subjected colleagues to harassment related to race

We decided to join the GMC’s appeal under Section 40B. This was an appeal against a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) decision to impose an eight-month suspension order without a review in respect of a Consultant Surgeon and senior registrant. Between August 2009 and April 2022, the registrant behaved inappropriately and in a sexually motivated way in relation to six colleagues, including inappropriate touching without consent, which constituted sexual harassment, as well as conduct which constituted harassment related to race, and which was intimidating, racist, and an abuse of his senior position. 

The GMC appealed the decision on the basis that the panel failed to apply relevant legal principles, failed to apply the sanctions guidance and the sanction failed to reflect the gravity of the misconduct. The PSA were also concerned that the panel failed to consider the significance of the registrant’s racist statements, they erred in finding that the registrant’s misconduct was ‘not difficult to remediate’, failed to consider the significance of its decision on public confidence in the regulation of doctors and that such misconduct would be adequately addressed, and failed to give adequate reasons for its decision. On 3 April 2025, the High Court Judge upheld the GMC’s appeal on some grounds and replaced the eight-month suspension order without a review with a 12-month suspension order with a review. The Judge did not uphold the PSA’s appeal. 

The GMC and PSA had concerns about this judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The GMC’s ground 1 (strike off was only reasonable sanction) was refused permission to appeal, and so did not form the basis of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. At a hearing on 15 January 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the GMC and PSA appeals and they did not consider that there were any legal errors made by the Judge at first instance, that the conclusion reached was one which was open to the Judge, and there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere. 

Nursing and Midwifery Council 

An appeal involving a nurse who subjected vulnerable care-home residents to ill treatment and physical chastisement, and was dishonest with regards to administering medication

This was an appeal against a NMC panel decision to impose a 12-month suspension order against a nurse who worked at two care homes at the time of the incidents. Concerns about the registrant were wide ranging, relating both to lack of care provided, physical chastisement and ill-treatment of vulnerable residents, and dishonesty with regard to the administration of medication. 

We were concerned over the Panel’s findings in relation to two charges and a failure to provide sufficient reasoning. We also had concerns with their decision on sanction, which we considered to be wrong, specifically that the Panel failed to identify and consider the full seriousness of the case, failed to find that the registrant’s conduct demonstrated harmful deep-seated personality and attitudinal problems, that the panel placed excessive weight on employment testimonials, and failed to properly consider and apply the sanctions guidance. 

The Court upheld our appeal and replaced the suspension order with a striking off order. 

An appeal against a failure to secure evidence, a panel’s assessment of evidence, and lack of factual and impairment findings involving a nurse and allegations of sexual misconduct against a colleague

This was an appeal against a NMC panel decision which found that the registrant was not impaired after finding a number of allegations of sexual misconduct not proved. Specifically, the allegations related to serious sexual misconduct against a colleague on a number of occasions. 

We were concerned that the NMC had failed to secure evidence to support its case, amounting to under-prosecution. Further, we were concerned that the Panel had fallen into error in their assessment of the evidence and whether there remained a case to answer in respect of the allegations. Finally, we were concerned that, even based upon what had been found proven, the Panel’s determination that the registrant was not impaired was wrong. The Court upheld our appeal and remitted the matter back to a freshly constituted panel.