Recent appeals
General Pharmaceutical Council
Appeal against a GPhC decision to suspend a pharmacist without review after carrying out a vaginal examination without clinical justification
This was an appeal against a GPhC panel decision to impose suspension for six months with no review in respect of a pharmacist who carried out an internal vaginal examination on a patient without clinical justification. We were concerned that a previous incident was not taken into account where the registrant offered to swab a patient’s vagina but was advised this was inappropriate. We were also concerned that the charges before the panel did not address the continuation of the examination despite the patient expressing that she was in pain. We also considered that the panel’s approach to the question of sexual motivation and its finding were wrong. 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 case has been sent back to the GPhC for a rehearing before a new panel with directions to consider a new allegation and about how the panel should approach the question of whether the vaginal examination was sexually motivated.
Health and Care Professions Council
Appeal against an HCPC decision to place conditions on a paramedic after multiple care failings when the case was not properly prosecuted
This was an appeal against an HCPC decision to impose conditions of practice on a paramedic. We had concerns about procedural failings in the way the HCPC had prosecuted the case. The panel were not given sight of a report from an independent expert. This meant the panel was not in a position to properly assess the seriousness of the allegations (some of which were not admitted by the registrant); there was also other relevant evidence that the panel did not see, including an allegation of dishonesty. We were also concerned that this case was closed by means of consensual disposal when not all the allegations against the registrant were admitted. A Consent Order has been agreed with the HCPC and approved by the Court. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. The appeal has been upheld and case has been sent back to the HCPC with directions that it considers bringing new allegations and rehear the case.
Appeal against an HCPC decision to find that a paramedic who displayed sexually motivated behaviour towards a student paramedic and patient’s relative was not impaired
This was an appeal against an HCPC panel decision to find no current impairment in relation to a paramedic who engaged in unprofessional behaviour towards one student-colleague and sexually motivated behaviour towards another student and a patient’s relative. We were concerned that the panel failed to properly consider both the registrant’s insight and the HCPC’s sanctions guidance and made a mistake in the way they determined whether the registrant was impaired. We were also concerned that the panel did not adequately explain how a finding of no impairment would maintain public confidence or uphold proper professional standards. 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 outcome has been replaced with a finding of impairment and a caution for two years.
Appeal against an HCPC decision suspending a registrant who had been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving for 12 months
This was an appeal against an HCPC panel decision to suspend a registrant for 12 months with a review. This was in relation to a paramedic convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. We were concerned that the HCPC and panel did not inquire into the registrant’s use of alcohol which resulted in the driving offence and how this impacted on the registrant’s fitness to practise. We were also concerned that the panel did not treat the registrant’s conviction seriously enough, placed weight on personal mitigation when the public interest should have been paramount and did not consider the impact of the registrant’s continued imprisonment for three years. The appeal has been upheld and the original sanction decision (suspension) has been quashed and striking-off substituted.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision to place conditions on a nurse who did not intervene to prevent abuse of a patient and was dishonest about it
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose conditions for 12 months with a review in respect of a nurse who witnessed abuse of a patient. The registrant did not intervene and also allowed the patient to be unnecessarily secluded. The registrant then dishonestly provided an account of the incident omitting any references to the abuse. We were concerned that the NMC did not place previous fitness to practise proceedings relating to inaccurate reporting before the panel leading to the conclusion that the registrant’s record was unblemished. We were also concerned that the panel did not adequately assess the seriousness of the registrant’s behaviour, did not apply the sanctions guidance, did not identify aggravating factors and gave weight to irrelevant mitigating 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 conditions have been replaced with suspension for 12 months with a review hearing.
Appeal against an NMC decision to impose a suspension order on a nurse who failed to assist a patient who was self-harming, erroneously administered medication to another patient, and was dishonest about it
This is an appeal of an NMC panel decision to impose suspension for 12 months with review in respect of a nurse who failed to assist a patient who was self-harming and erroneously administered medication to another vulnerable patient but did not report the error and dishonestly attempted to cover up the error. We are concerned that the panel failed to give adequate weight to the registrant’s rejected defence which included criticisms of the motivations and mental capacity of witnesses and the validity of the NMC proceedings. We are also concerned that the panel’s decision not to impose striking-off was wrong because the sanctions guidance was not correctly applied. This appeal was settled by way of a Consent Order upholding the appeal. The original sanction decision has been quashed and is remitted to a fresh panel with directions.
Appeal against an NMC decision to place conditions on a nurse who verbally abused patients and did not treat them with respect and dignity
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose conditions for 18 months with a review in respect of a nurse who verbally abused a patient and failed to treat patients with respect and dignity. We were concerned that, on the panel’s own findings, the decision to impose conditions was wrong. We were also concerned that the panel found some proven facts did not amount to misconduct, counted the same factors as both aggravating and mitigating factors, and failed to acknowledge the registrant had unlawfully deprived a mental health patient of their liberty. A Consent Order has been agreed with the NMC and approved by the Court. This means that the original panel decision has been quashed. The appeal has been upheld and the conditions have been replaced with suspension for 12 months with a review hearing.
Appeal against an NMC decision to impose a caution order where a senior nurse covertly administered medication without clinical justification, left medication unattended, and pressured a colleague to lie about it
This is an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose a caution for four years in respect of a nurse in charge of a care home who covertly administered medication when not clinically indicated, left medication due for administration unattended and dishonestly instructed a colleague not to report an incident and did not himself report the incident. We were concerned that it was not alleged that the covert medication was dishonest. We were also concerned that evidence supportive of a charge found not proved was not put before the panel. This charge involved pressuring a colleague to undertake an intimate examination of a patient for which they were not qualified and which would breach patient dignity. We were concerned the panel’s characterisation of the misconduct being at the lower end of the spectrum was wrong and that it failed to identify aggravating factors and adequately assess the seriousness of the case. The appeal has been upheld and the caution order have been replaced with suspension for six months with a review hearing.
Recent Court Hearings
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appeal against an NMC decision to suspend a nurse convicted of lying about starting CPR on a patient
This was an appeal against an NMC panel decision to impose suspension for nine months with review in respect of a nurse convicted of perverting the course of justice. This conviction related to the registrant’s dishonesty in stating that he had immediately commenced CPR on a patient found hanging from a ligature when he had not. The patient died and the registrant asked a colleague to lie and misled the police, Coroner and his employer. The registrant maintained his dishonesty but was convicted following trial. We were concerned that the panel did not treat the behaviour resulting in conviction seriously enough or consider fundamental incompatibility and adequately apply the sanctions guidance, and that the panel’s approach to sanction was flawed. This appeal was heard on 19 April 2024 and a reserved decision delivered on 29 April upheld the appeal. The original decision has been quashed and the suspension replaced with striking-off.
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.