Fitness to Practise Appeals update - Winter 2026

This is an update on our fitness to practise appeals (so no publication to download) from October 2025 to January 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:

• two cases involving registrants who failed to maintain, or, overstepped professional boundaries
• a registrant who failed to declare relevant information on an application to foster vulnerable children
• a registrant who dishonesty submitted falsified timesheets
• a registrant who was dishonest about English-language skills and work experience
• a registrant who was dishonest about their care of a vulnerable child.

Appeals resolved by consent
 

Health and Care Professions Council

An appeal involving a registrant who made inappropriate sexual comments and failed to maintain professional boundaries with colleagues

This was an appeal against a HCPC panel decision to impose a four-month suspension order with review. The case involved a radiographer who made inappropriate sexual comments and failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries towards three female members of staff. The registrant also tried to coerce one colleague into providing a supportive statement to the HCPC. The panel imposed a four-month suspension with review following findings of misconduct (only some of which was found to be sexual). 

We were concerned that the panel wrongly directed itself as to the scope of alleged sexual misconduct and failed to charge sexual motivation and/or sexual harassment. Further, we were concerned that the panel made an error in its identification and consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case. A consent order was agreed upholding all our grounds of appeal. The Panel’s decision was quashed and the matter remitted to a new panel for re-determination.

Nursing and Midwifery Council

An appeal involving a registrant who failed to declare relevant information on an application to foster vulnerable children

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to find a registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired. The registrant was found to have failed to declare relevant information on her joint application to foster vulnerable children. “Person A”, who resided at the same address as the registrant, was being investigated for alleged abuse against vulnerable people in their care. The registrant then failed to notify the NMC or her employer that she had been de-registered for non-disclosure and as to her previous employment. We were concerned over the panel’s lack of finding of impairment and that they had not provided sufficient reasonings for their finding. A consent order was agreed to concede that the decision that Charge 1 (failed to declare relevant information) did not amount to misconduct was quashed and substituted with a finding of misconduct. The decision that the registrant’s practice was not impaired was quashed and remitted to a new panel. 

An appeal involving a registrant who dishonestly submitted fraudulent timesheets

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a suspension order after the registrant had fraudulently and dishonesty submitted timesheets for 45 shifts in March and April 2021 that she had not worked and signed these as an authorised person. We were concerned that the sanction did not reflect the seriousness of the registrant’s conduct, that the panel had made a number of errors and did not consider relevant information in making their decision, departed from the sanctions guidance without giving adequate reasons, and did not give adequate reasons for finding that a striking off order would be disproportionate. A consent order was agreed upholding all of our grounds of appeal and substituting a six-month suspension order with a striking off order.
 

Recent Court hearings

Health and Social Care Professions Council

An appeal involving a registrant who was dishonest about English-language skills and experience

We appealed this HCPC panel decision concerning a radiographer who appeared to have falsely declared English as her first language and overstated the extent and recency of her radiography experience when seeking registration and employment in the UK. At the substantive hearing, the panel found no dishonesty and imposed only a six month suspension.
We were concerned that the panel had applied the wrong test with regards to the language declaration, had failed to consider dishonesty, and had reached irrational conclusions based on speculative findings about the registrant’s subjective beliefs. The judge upheld the appeal on all grounds, quashed several of the panel’s factual findings, substituted findings of dishonesty, and replaced the suspension with a striking off order.

Nursing and Midwifery Council

An appeal involving a registrant who breached professional boundaries, but where a panel allowed the order to lapse following a finding of impairment at a review hearing

This was an appeal against a NMC panel decision where, at a review hearing, the panel allowed the order to lapse with a finding of impairment, despite the registrant’s limited engagement, insight and remediation. The charges against the registrant related to breaching professional boundaries with patients, their families, and colleagues including discussions about abduction, abuse and rape of children, with the registrant having been placed on the DBS barring list for a period of 10 years. We were concerned that the panel failed to properly apply the relevant guidance, failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the guidance, and that the only sanction reasonably open to the panel in the circumstances was to impose a striking-off order. The judge upheld our grounds, quashed the panel decision, and imposed a striking off order.

An appeal involving a registrant who was dishonest while caring for a vulnerable child 

This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a 12-month suspension order. The registrant, an agency nurse, was commissioned to supply two-to-one support for “Child A”, a highly vulnerable patient with complex care needs, requiring continuous monitoring and appropriate hygiene care at their home. It was alleged that during a night shift the registrant slept whilst on duty when caring for Child A and dishonestly recorded that she had observed Child A when she had not. The registrant also did not maintain hygiene and/or infection control and used a cloth that she had used to cover the CCTV camera to then wash Child A. The registrant’s conduct placed the child at serious risk of harm and could have been fatal. Finally, the registrant acted dishonestly in not giving an accurate account to her employer when asked. There was also a history of concerns relating to sleeping on duty and being dishonest whilst caring for a highly vulnerable young person at their home, with a previous warning being issued by the NMC in 2017.

We had concerns that the panel had imposed a sanction that we considered was not sufficient on public protection grounds. Specifically, that the panel did not properly consider and apply the sanctions guidance, erroneously considered the registrant’s dishonesty was not on the higher end of the spectrum and was only a single episode of dishonesty, and that the misconduct was a one-off. We were also concerned by the panel’s decision that a finding of impairment was unnecessary on grounds of public protection and that they failed to give adequate reasons for their decision. Lastly, the panel did not properly take into consideration the repetition of behaviour following the previous NMC warning imposed, including breach of the assurance given not to work in the community. 

The Judge upheld our grounds of appeal, quashing the panel’s decision and substituting it with a striking off order.