Fitness to Practise Appeals update (Winter/Spring 2025)
In the past few months, we have concluded five appeals of regulator final fitness to practise decisions. We appealed these decisions based on our belief that they were insufficient to protect the public. These include cases settled by consent as well as outcomes from recent Court hearings.
The cases we have appealed cover a range of issues, including cases involving:
- a registrant required to be registered with the police after being convicted under the Sexual Offences Act
- a registrant whose clinical failings contributed to the death of a patient’s unborn baby
- a registrant who behaved inappropriately towards a male colleague
- a registrant who behaved inappropriately towards three female colleagues.
We also appealed two cases were the process/requirements set out in legislation were not followed.
Appeals resolved by consent
The following appeals have been resolved by consent with the regulator and registrant.
An appeal against a GMC decision to find the registrant no longer impaired but who continued to be registered with the police after being convicted under the Sexual Offences Act
This was an appeal against a General Medical Council (GMC) panel decision to not find the registrant impaired at a review hearing. This was despite the fact that the registrant was required to be registered with the police for five years following his conviction for of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We were concerned that the Tribunal erred in its application of the GMC’s sanction guidance. This states that no doctor registered as a sex offender should have unrestricted registration, and that the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for its departure from the sanctions guidance. A Consent Order has been agreed. This means that the original panel decision is quashed and substituted with a finding that the registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, and the matter remitted back to a differently constituted panel.
An appeal against an NMC decision involving a midwife’s clinical failings in relation to the death of a patient’s unborn baby
This is an appeal against a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) decision to impose suspension for 12 months with a review in respect of a midwife’s serious clinical failings. We were concerned that the panel’s sanction decision was wrong, having regard to the sanctions guidance and did not explain why striking-off was not required. A Consent Order has been agreed. This means that the original panel decision is quashed and substituted with an order to strike the registrant’s name off the register.
Recent Court hearings
The following appeals have been heard.
An appeal relating to the panel’s mistaken analysis of legislation and decision that the order had already expired
This was an appeal of a Health and Care Profession (HCPC) panel decision not to review a sanction of conditions as the panel considered the suspension had already expired. We appealed because we considered the panel’s analysis of HCPC’s legislation relating to the expiry of the order was wrong, with the result that a review of the sanction was not undertaken. This appeal was heard on 23 January 2025.
The appeal has been upheld and the panel’s original decision is quashed.
An appeal involving a GPhC decision and abuse of process
This was an appeal of a General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) panel decision to grant a stay of proceedings on grounds of an abuse of process: when a case worker recommended the case against the registrant be closed. This was despite the case worker not having authority to close the case and a GPhC lawyer confirming the referral. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel did not direct itself appropriately to the GPhC’s statutory process, closure of the case or the legal test for an abuse of process. This appeal hearing took place on 22 October 2024.
The appeal has been upheld and the panel’s original decision is quashed.
An appeal against a GPhC decision to find no case to answer without hearing the witness’ evidence
This is an appeal of a GPhC panel decision to find no case to answer in respect of allegations that the registrant touched a male colleague’s genitals, despite the registrant’s admissions. We appealed because we considered the GPhC did not make adequate efforts to secure the colleague’s attendance at the hearing, and the GPhC, in offering no evidence, did not provide an adequate basis for the panel to determine the application of no case to answer.
The appeal has been upheld and the panel’s original decision is quashed and remitted back to a new panel.
