Successful restoration case before the NMC

This was a successful restoration case before the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC). Our client had been struck off and had been unsuccessful in a previous attempt at gaining restoration to the register.

 Speaking about this case, fitness to practise defence barrister, Catherine Stock, said:

“Working with us they were able to understand better how the restoration process worked and how to better prepare for the second attempt.”

 Our client also undertook a comprehensive mentorship programme through Insight Works Training which provided them with the time, space and tools to move forward.

 Catherine continued:

“If you have been struck off, removed, or erased by your regulator, the sooner you seek advice the better. If you have already been unsuccessful in gaining restoration, it is imperative that you seek appropriate advice from experts in this process as the regulator can, after two unsuccessful applications, suspend your right to apply indefinitely.”

 Speaking after their case, our client said:

“I came across Catherine Stock online while looking for Probity and Ethics courses. I got to enrol on the course, and it was during the course that I learned she was a regulatory law Barrister.

“I reached out to Catherine, instructing her to represent me on my second application to be restored to the NMC register as a Midwife.  Her professionalism is top-notch, and she is good and confident in what she does. I cannot thank her and Kings View Chambers enough for successfully restoring me to the NMC Register.

“I highly recommend Kings View Chambers for your regulatory law cases, and you will never regret it.”

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

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

1. Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
2. Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
3. Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
4. Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
5. Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

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.