Credibility & Reliability of Witness’ evidence in Fitness to Practise Hearings

Under what circumstances should a fitness to practise tribunal be required to set out its assessment of the general credibility and reliability of each witness’ evidence? To what the extent of the forensic analysis and reasoning required for making such assessments?

In Hindle v The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the High Court responded to the standard of reasoning to be expected of fitness to practise and other professional discipline tribunals when making findings of fact, on the ‘balance of probabilities’, which turn on witnesses’ conflicting factual narratives.

The case involved Laura Yalda Hindle, a nurse who faced 32 disciplinary charges brought by the NMC. These charges stemmed from a collective grievance filed by four nurses under her management at Stonyhurst College, an independent boarding school. The allegations ranged from physical misconduct to administrative failures.

The NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found several charges proved, resulting in a six-month suspension.

The appellant nurse argued that the tribunal failed to adequately assess the credibility and reliability of key witnesses, including addressing inconsistencies in their evidence. The tribunal was criticized for isolating its evaluation of each charge rather than taking a holistic view of the evidence, and for providing insufficient reasoning to justify its findings, which left procedural fairness in question. Additionally, concerns were raised about the improper handling of the burden of proof and the impact of procedural delays on the appellant.

Unique and practical courses focusing on impairment, reflection, insight, and remediation at highly competitive prices.

Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.