Recent appeals
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision to find a nurse convicted of racially aggravated intentional harassment was not impaired
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to make a finding of no impairment in respect of a nurse who was convicted of racially aggravated intentional harassment. We were concerned that the panel did not:
- adequately address the registrant’s insight; or
- explain its conclusions;
- did not apply the sanctions guidance or provide reasons to explain its departure from it; and
- did not adequately address the need to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards.
We were also concerned that the legal adviser’s advice to the panel was wrong in law and that the panel placed weight on irrelevant factors when determining the registrant’s current impairment. This appeal was settled by way of a Consent Order. The parties agreed that the appeal be upheld, that the decision of no impairment be quashed, and a finding of impairment be imposed together with suspension for three months with a review hearing.
Health and Care Professions Council
Appeal against an HCPC decision to suspend a psychologist for nine months after they breached professional boundaries with three of their patients
This was an appeal against an HCPC panel’s decision to suspend a psychologist for nine months who breached professional boundaries with three patients. We were concerned that sexual motivation was not alleged in relation to the behaviour towards one of the patients and the panel did not address the registrant’s motivation in its decision. We are also concerned that the panel did not apply the sanctions guidance, address the risk of repetition or consider striking-off and explain why it would be disproportionate. A Consent Order has been agreed between all the parties. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. The case has been remitted to the HCPC for rehearing before a fresh panel with an allegation that the registrant’s actions in respect of one of the witnesses were sexually motivated. The witnesses do not need to give further evidence at the rehearing.
Recent Court Hearings
General Medical Council
Appeal against a GMC decision to suspend a doctor who had a sexual relationship with a patient
This was an appeal against a decision by the MPT of the GMC to suspend a doctor for six months with a review. The doctor in question had a sexual relationship with a patient. We appealed this decision because we were concerned that the charges brought before the MPT did not reflect the true circumstances of the misconduct, including the patient’s vulnerability. We also believed that there was a ‘striking disjuncture’ between the panel’s conclusions at the sanction stage and the findings made earlier at the impairment stage, (that is to say that the conclusions at the sanction stage did not match with how seriously the impairment stage described the conduct to be) and that the panel did not provide reasons to demonstrate it had grappled with the seriousness of the registrant’s behaviour or the sanctions guidance. Our appeal was upheld and we were successful in arguing that the GMC had under-prosecuted the case by failing to address the patient’s vulnerability and the registrant’s knowledge of this. The High Court ordered that the entire original decision, including the sanction of six months’ suspension be quashed and the case remitted to a freshly constituted MPTS panel for re-hearing.
Social Work England
Appeal against a Social Work England decision to find no impairment for a social worker who subjected her children to emotional abuse or distress and was not open about being investigated during a job interview
This was an appeal against a decision of a Social Work England panel of Adjudicators in relation to a registrant who was charged with subjecting her two children, to emotional abuse and/or emotional distress; that during a job interview, she had failed to disclose that she had been subject to a fitness to practise investigation and was subject to further, ongoing fitness to practise investigations; and finally that her failure to make those disclosures during an interview was dishonest. The panel considered that a finding of impairment was not required and directed that the registrant be given a warning for a period of five years. We were concerned that this decision was wrong because the panel’s approach in concluding there was a low risk of repetition made no sense; that the legal assessor’s advice was inadequate and as a result the panel made a mistake – specifically the failure to refer to the guidance of the Court in Bolton); and the panel’s approach to the weight to be given to aggravating and mitigating factors was wrong.
Our appeal was upheld and the original no impairment decision along with its outcome of a warning were quashed and a finding of impairment on all grounds has been substituted. The matter has been remitted for redetermination of sanction.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision not to strike off a nurse convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship and barred from working with children and vulnerable adults
This was an appeal against an NMC panel to suspend the registrant for nine months with a review hearing. The registrant was convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. His conviction was considered by the Disclosure and Barring Service, and he was placed on its barred lists. We were concerned by this decision because the NMC had failed to obtain any evidence about why the DBS had decided to bar the registrant from working with children and vulnerable adults. The panel also failed to adjourn and wait for these enquiries to be made. We also considered the panel was wrong to conclude that suspension was the appropriate outcome taking into the account NMC’s sanctions guidance and the overarching objectives. Our appeal was upheld and the sanction decision was quashed and striking-off imposed – meaning that the registrant will be removed from the NMC’s register.
Our appeals against fitness to practise decisions are a legal process – this means that we use a lot of specialist phrases and terminology. If you are not sure what any of them mean – you can find some of our frequently used terms explained in this glossary.