Recent appeals
Health and Care Professions Council
Appeal against an HCPC decision involving a podiatrist convicted of assault who failed to disclose this to the HCPC and was found not to be impaired
This was an appeal against an HCPC panel’s decision to find a podiatrist not impaired. The podiatrist had been convicted of assault by beating and, though the HCPC’s code requires that any conviction of this type should be disclosed, the podiatrist did not inform the HCPC of the conviction. We appealed this decision because there were procedural failures in how the HCPC prepared and presented the case to the panel, resulting in the panel not having the relevant evidence. We also believe that the panel’s approach to an application made by the HCPC to present additional evidence and its consideration of factors relating to impairment were wrong. A Consent Order has been agreed between all the parties. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. Some findings of fact and impairment for public interest reasons have been substituted and a sanction of a caution for six months imposed.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision to suspend a nurse who made an audio recording of a vulnerable patient and then played it to colleagues
This was an appeal against an NMC panel’s decision to suspend a nurse for six months, with review. The nurse recorded a vulnerable patient and then played it to colleagues. The registrant had previously been struck off for misconduct towards patients in a similar setting and restored to the NMC’s register just weeks before this latest incident. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel was wrong to find that the registrant did not present a risk to patients. We also believed that the panel did not adequately address the registrant’s previous misconduct, the fact of barring by the Disclosure and Barring Service or the registrant’s persistent denials and fabricated explanations. This appeal was settled by way of a Consent Order. The parties agreed that the appeal be upheld and that the original decision be quashed. The case has been remitted to the NMC for a fresh panel to redetermine impairment and sanction.
Appeal against an NMC decision to suspend a nurse who abused a vulnerable patient
This was an appeal against a decision of an NMC panel in relation to a mental health nurse who verbally abused and used excessive force on a deaf patient who was a paranoid schizophrenic with a personality disorder. The registrant was barred by the Disclosure and Barring Service from working with children and vulnerable adults. The panel imposed suspension for 12 months with review. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel failed to consider whether the registrant could remedy impaired fitness to practise while remaining barred by the Disclosure and Barring Service or the registrant’s repeated desire not to work as a nurse again. We also believe that the panel’s assessments of the nurse’s insight and remorse were wrong and that in this case, the panel should have concluded that the registrant’s behaviour indicated attitudinal problems. This appeal was settled by way of a Consent Order. We agreed with the NMC that the appeal be upheld and that the original sanction decision be quashed. The case has been remitted to the NMC for a fresh panel to redetermine the sanction – taking into account the points we raised in our appeal.
Appeal against an NMC decision to suspend a nurse who assaulted a patient and was not open and honest during an investigation
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a suspension order for 12 months with review against a nurse who assaulted a patient. We appealed because we were concerned that the NMC did not charge the registrant with being dishonest during the internal investigation into the incident. We were also concerned that the panel:
- did not correctly assess whether the registrant demonstrated any insight;
- did not adequately demonstrate application of the sanctions guidance; and
- did not sufficiently explain why striking-off was not required.
All the parties involved have agreed to a Consent Order. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. The case has been sent back to the NMC to be heard before a fresh panel with new charges addressing the nature of the registrant’s conviction and the registrant’s initial dishonest account of the behaviour.
Appeal against an NMC decision to stay (pause) proceedings against nurses alleged to have provided poor care
These were two appeals against decisions made by an NMC panel at a joint hearing to stay (stop) proceedings on the grounds of an abuse of process because the panel’s notes from the part-heard hearing had been lost. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel did not properly apply the legal test for an abuse of process and that the panel did not give sufficient consideration to the public interest in the charges relating to poor care in a care home being heard and determined. A Consent Order has been agreed between the parties. This means the original decision has been quashed. The case has been remitted to the NMC for rehearing.
General Pharmaceutical Council
Appeal against a GPhC decision to suspend a pharmacist without review after dishonesty convictions
This was an appeal against a GPhC panel decision to suspend a pharmacist for four months who was convicted of two offences of obtaining exemption from liability by deception (claiming business rates relief for pharmacy premises in two separate local authorities when the entitlement is only for one) between 2005 and 2019. The pharmacist was sentenced to imprisonment for 16 months, suspended for 18 months. We appealed because were concerned that the panel had simply imposed a four-month suspension to cover the period left running on the suspended sentence and did not adequately take into account the registrant’s evidence that they had not been dishonest or consider how this impacted on insight and integrity. We also believe the panel had not treated the registrant’s convictions seriously enough nor adequately identified aggravating factors. A Consent Order has been agreed between all the parties. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. The appeal has been upheld and the original decision has been substituted with suspension for six months with a review hearing. Directions have also been made for the panel at the review hearing to address deficiencies in the original decision.
Appeals against a GPhC decision to find no case to answer in relation to married pharmacists alleged to have supplied excessive amounts of controlled drugs
These were two appeals against decisions made by a GPhC panel at a joint hearing to find no case to answer on charges concerning a pharmacy operated by married registrants who had supplied excessive amounts of controlled drugs without appropriate checks. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel’s decision did not give sufficient weight to the opinion of the GPhC inspector about excessive quantities and failed to take account of the relevant standards or the public interest.
Social Work England
Appeal against a decision involving a registrant who neglected their own baby
This was an appeal against a Social Work England panel decision to impose suspension for 12 months in respect of a registrant convicted of wilful neglect of their ten-week-old baby. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel did not sufficiently address the registrant’s lack of insight given their maintained denial of the offence and the resulting risk of repetition. We were also concerned that this behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continuing registration as a social worker and removal was necessary to protect the public. A Consent Order has been agreed between the parties. The appeal has been upheld and the original decision sanction of suspension has been quashed and substituted with removal from Social Work England’s register.
Recent Court Hearings
General Dental Council
Appeal against a GDC decision to reprimand a dentist convicted of causing death by careless driving
This was an appeal against the decision of a GDC panel to impose a reprimand in respect of a dentist convicted of causing death by careless driving contrary to section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. We appealed because we were concerned that the panel’s assessment of the seriousness of the criminal offence was wrong, and that it reached wrong conclusions about the dentist’s level of insight on the available evidence. We also believed the weighing by the panel of factors relevant to mitigation was wrong; and that the panel did not adequately take into account relevant features of the case when applying the sanctions guidance. Our appeal was upheld and the High Court quashed the original decision to impose a reprimand and ordered the sanction to be re-decided by a new GDC panel.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision not to strike off a nurse who deliberately assaulted a patient and dishonestly failed to disclose relevant information to a future employer and breached an interim order
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose suspension for 12 months with review in respect of a nurse who deliberately assaulted a vulnerable patient, dishonestly failed to disclose information to a future employer about the matter and breached an interim order for conditions. We appealed this decision because we were concerned that the panel found the registrant was not impaired on public protection grounds based on its findings about the registrant’s insight and lack of attitudinal failings. We also believed the panel did not treat the registrant’s behaviour seriously enough and did not provide sufficient reasons to explain its decision. We considered the panel was wrong to find that the registrant had not failed to disclose her interim conditions to an employer and that other proven breaches did not amount to misconduct. Our appeal was upheld and the High Court quashed the original decision to impose suspension for 12 months with review and instead substituted striking-off – meaning that the registrant will be removed from the NMC’s register.
Appeal against an NMC decision to suspend a nurse who dishonestly failed to provide her employer with her interim conditions and breached interim conditions by working unsupervised
This was an appeal against an NMC’s panel decision to impose a suspension order for six months with review in relation to a nurse who breached interim conditions of practice by dishonestly failing to provide her employer with the conditions and working unsupervised. We appealed because we were concerned that:
- the panel had found that working unsupervised had not also been dishonest;
- the panel failed to treat the registrant’s misconduct seriously enough;
- the panel did not properly apply the sanctions guidance; and
- the panel did not provide reasons to explain why striking-off was disproportionate.
Our appeal was upheld and the High Court quashed the original decision to impose suspension and ordered the sanction to be re-decided by a new NMC panel.
General Pharmaceutical Council
Appeal against a GPhC decision to impose a warning against a pharmacist who was found to have made antisemitic and offensive comments to a crowd at a public rally
This was an appeal against a GPhC panel decision to impose a warning after the registrant was found to have made comments at a public rally that were antisemitic and offensive. We appealed this decision because we believed that a warning was insufficient in the circumstances. We believed that the panel wrongly dismissed the option of imposing conditions of practice and failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision. Our appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The Judge held that given the panel’s findings, he could not conclude that the panel’s decision to impose a warning was wrong.
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.