Recent appeals
General Medical Council/Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Appeal against a GMC decision involving a male doctor breaching professional boundaries with junior, female colleagues
This was an appeal against a GMC decision to find no current impairment and impose a warning in respect of a male doctor breaching professional boundaries with two younger, junior female colleagues, with sexual motivation in the case of one colleague. The panel gave very brief reasons why a finding of impairment was not required in the particular circumstances of the case which aggravated with registrant’s behaviour. The parties agreed to a Consent Order upholding the appeal and substituting a finding of impairment and a one-month suspension for the original not impaired decision. The GMC and registrant have agreed to pay our costs. You can read the Consent Order here.
Appeal against a GMC decision involving a doctor convicted of assault by beating
The GMC panel imposed suspension for five months with a review in respect of a doctor convicted of two counts of assault by beating. The criminal offences related to two occasions when the registrant had inscribed his initials on the livers of patients using an argon beam coagulator. The appeal was heard on 13 July 2021 and upheld in a reserved decision handed down on 27 July 2021. The High Court agreed with the GMC that the panel’s approach was flawed and with the Authority’s argument that the GMC should have placed additional relevant material from the Trust investigation before the panel. The case has been remitted to the GMC for the panel to re-determine the sanction. The registrant has agreed to pay a proportion of our costs.
Appeal involving an MPTS decision involving a group of doctors who sent offensive, racist, discriminatory and disrespectful messages as part of a WhatsApp group
We joined the General Medical Council’s appeal, as an interested party, in a case involving nine doctors who were members of a WhatsApp group. Over three years, they exchanged numerous messages that were offensive, racist, discriminatory, and disrespectful towards women, disabled people and people who are LGBTQ. As well as written messages, one doctor shared a category A pornographic image and others shared extreme pornographic images. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found that the messages amounted to misconduct but that the doctors were not impaired because they had since shown considerable insight and remorse and were unlikely to repeat the conduct. The MPTS took no action against the doctors.
The GMC appealed the decision because the MPTS had failed to properly consider its duty to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession.
The High Court has approved the consent orders agreed by all parties. The consent orders provide that warnings should be placed on the medical register for two years. You can find out more in our web statement.
Health and Care Professions Council
Appeal against an HCPC decision involving a paramedic and a failure to investigate the case fully
This was an appeal against an HCPC decision to impose a caution order against a paramedic. The evidence before the HCPC (as the investigator) and the panel (as the adjudicator) raised significant concerns about the registrant. However, sufficient inquiry was not conducted into these matters and conclusions were reached without the benefit of expert evidence. The Court has approved the agreement between the parties that the caution order is quashed and replaced by a conditions of practice order.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision involving a nurse who lied about his ability to carry out an intravenous procedure
This was an appeal against an NMC decision to impose conditions of practice for 18 months in respect of a nurse who had dishonestly claimed he was able to undertake intra-venous procedures by passing an assessment when in fact he had failed it. The panel did not explain how the conditions would adequately address the public interest engaged by the registrant’s dishonesty, nor did it appear to treat the dishonesty and the registrant’s attitude and partial insight seriously enough. The parties agreed to a Consent Order upholding the appeal and remitting the case for redetermination of sanction with stipulations that the panel address certain issues. The NMC has agreed to pay our costs.
Appeal against an NMC decision
This was an appeal against an NMC decision to make a finding that the registrant is not impaired. The hearing against this registrant was held in private, so details are limited. The Court has approved the agreement between the parties that the decision to find the registrant not impaired is quashed and replaced with a finding of current impairment. The case has been remitted to the NMC panel to consider the sanction.
Appeal against an NMC decision involving a nurse who made racist remarks
This is an appeal against an NMC decision to accept a Consensual Panel Determination agreement imposing a six-month suspension with review in respect of racist comments made to a colleague, including a comment about a patient. The panel did not grapple with the apparent attitudinal failings or seriousness of the misconduct in determining sanction. A consent order upholding the appeal has been lodged with the Court.
Appeal against an NMC decision involving a nurse who mistreated a vulnerable patient
This was an appeal against an NMC decision to impose suspension for six months in respect of a nurse who force-fed an elderly and vulnerable patient in a care home and directed a junior colleague to assist her to force-feed the patient. The registrant did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence of insight or remediation, yet the panel considered the period of suspension would allow the registrant to develop insight. The hearing had been listed for 17 November 2021 but was vacated when the Authority reached an agreement with the parties whereby a decision of a review panel to allow the registration to lapse was accepted. The Court has approved the consent order upholding the appeal and requiring certain information to be taken into account in any restoration application.
Appeal against an NMC decision involving a nurse who forged colleagues’ signatures
This was an appeal against an NMC decision to impose a 12-month suspension with review in respect of a nurse forging colleagues’ signatures on Patient Group Directions in the context of a CQC inspection. When challenged, the registrant asked colleagues to lie. Our concern was that the panel did not treat this misconduct seriously enough. The appeal was settled by consent with the parties agreeing that the registrant should be removed from the register.
Appeal against an NMC decision involving a nurse who had inappropriately handled a patient
This as an appeal against a decision of the NMC to impose a 12-month suspension with review in respect of a nurse in a care home who pushed, stamped on and restrained an elderly, vulnerable patient. Our concern was that the panel did not treat this misconduct seriously enough, particularly when the registrant had not engaged with the proceedings. The appeal was settled by consent and the parties agreed that the registrant should be removed from the register.
Social Work England
Appeal against a Social Work England decision involving a social worker
This was the Authority’s first appeal against a Social Work England decision. There is an anonymity order in place in this case. This means that the registrant’s name is anonymised, and details of the case are limited. The Authority was concerned that the panel did not undertake its duty of inquiry in this case and therefore reached conclusions that were not open to it. The Court has approved the agreement between the parties that the flawed decisions are quashed, and the case remitted back to Social Work England for reconsideration.
Appeal against a Social Work England decision involving a social worker taking financial advantage of a vulnerable service user
This was an appeal against a Social Work England decision to find no misconduct in respect of allegations that the registrant dishonestly used his position as a social worker to take financial advantage of a vulnerable service user. The Authority had previously and successfully appealed an HCPC decision in respect of the same registrant. In this second case, the panel only found some of the charges proven applying a narrow view of the registrant’s obligations to the service user. The panel was not assisted by amendments to the charges which removed relevant material from the panel’s consideration. The Authority has now withdrawn this appeal because the registrant was removed by Social Work England at the rehearing of the earlier appealed HCPC decision. The removal has taken effect because the registrant did not himself appeal. Therefore, we concluded that no further hearing was required to protect to the public.
Appeal against a Social Work England decision involving a social worker who had a sexual relationship with a service user and lied about it
This was an appeal against a decision to impose a 12-month suspension order with review. The registrant engaged in a relationship with a service user. Our concern relates to under-prosecution and the final decision made by the panel. There was evidence to support allegations that the registrant participated in the relationship when she knew the service user was vulnerable, that she deliberately misled a local investigation, that she relied upon the vulnerability of the service user to persuade those investigating the allegations not to believe the claims made by the service user; and that she deliberately misled Social Work England. The panel did not appear to grapple with the seriousness of the misconduct and the impact that it has on the public interest. This was a case where the registrant showed limited insight into her wrongdoing. The appeal was settled by consent and the parties agreed that the case be remitted to a new Social Work England panel for consideration of sanction.
Recent Court Hearings
Appeal against a GDC decision involving a dentist who made misleading claims about treatments
This was an appeal against a General Dental Council (GDC) decision to impose a three-month suspension in respect of a dentist who made misleading claims about the efficacy of a treatment he provided and the care he provided that was not explained to a vulnerable patient. The GDC case did not explore the link between the registrant’s misleading statements and the treatment he provided without proper diagnostic assessments. There was no basis for the panel to conclude that the registrant would develop insight or remediate his misconduct during the period of suspension. The hearing took place on 9 November 2021. Judgment was handed down on 1 December 2021. The appeal was upheld. The Court has quashed the decision to suspend the registrant and substituted an erasure order – meaning that the dentist will be removed from the GDC’s register.
Appeal against a GOC decision involving an optometrist who failed to carry out adequate checks on two children and then tried to cover this up
This was an appeal against a General Optical Council (GOC) decision to suspend the registrant for a period of nine months, having found her, in summary, guilty of failing to carry out adequate eye examinations in respect of two children, and dishonestly making an inaccurate and misleading record in relation to her examination of one of the children. The panel decided not to order a review hearing before the end of the period of suspension. We were concerned that the GOC failed to properly charge the registrant with certain allegations, the panel took the wrong approach to impairment and sanction, and the panel wrongly decided not to require a review before the conclusion of the period of suspension. The hearing took place on 7 October 2021 and the decision has now been handed down. The Authority was successful and the case has been remitted to a new GOC panel for a decision.
Appeal against a Social Work England involving a social worker convicted under the Immigration Act
This was an appeal against a Social Work England decision to impose a 12-month suspension of a social worker convicted of seven counts under the Immigration Act and sentenced to prison for eight months. The offences related to dishonest documentation produced by the registrant to secure the entry of a child from Bangladesh into the UK so that the registrant could adopt her. The panel did not address the registrant’s limited insight when concluding that the risk of repetition was low and determining sanction. The hearing took place on 9 December 2021. The Judgment was handed down on 13 December 2021. The appeal was upheld. The Court has quashed the decision to suspend the registrant and remitted the case to Social Work England for redetermination of sanction with directions.
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.