First pub. Oct 2020 – updated Sept 2022 and April 2025.
Over the last few years we have reviewed cases where registrants have challenged the substantive order by the NMC in the High Court. Our blogs have discussed the apparent lack of protection of the human rights of nurses and midwives undergoing Fitness to Practice investigation. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has admitted that its only remit is to protect the public and that it has no duty of care to the registrant (nurse, midwife, or nursing associate). Despite attempts over the last few years to appear more person-centred and compassionate towards those undergoing Fitness to Practice, these cases show there are still no significant steps to safeguard against harm.
The recent statement in Open Council shows that this is unlikely to change:
“NMC has safeguarding responsibilities only towards the people it protects from healthcare failings of registrants.” (NMC Open Council papers, 26 March 2025)
The charity commission tells us in their overarching guidance that:
“All charities have a responsibility to ensure they don’t cause harm to anyone who has contact with them.” (The Charity Commission 17.1121)
Human Rights
There are now many examples of how the FtP process impacts our basic human rights, which seem to be discarded the moment we qualify as a nurse or midwife.
The IMMDS Baroness Cumberledge team appointed by HSC Minister Jeremy Hunt presented data collated by Ms Vassanta Suddock in regards to the disparity between sanctions that doctors receive in comparison to nurses and midwives. The GMC confirmed that more nurses/midwives were impaired, sanctioned and struck off during FtP thank doctors, stating the reason as being due to nurses and midwives not being as litigious as doctors. This is a sad fact – are they saying that because a group is less able to advocate for themselves and more vulnerable they have to accept they will not be safeguarded?
Article 8 protects your right to respect your private and family life. Advice given by the Human Rights charity Liberty states:
- An “analysis of the interplay of the NMC’s legislative powers with the ‘right to privacy’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should be considered”
- Some considerations should be thought of within this area in relation to data protection and disclosure of information in the name of “public interest”
- there is no specific obligation to publish or disclose details of hearings in advance of the hearing concluded
- potential breach of Article 8 of the ECHR protects the right to respect the private life of individuals. The ECHR is given effect in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Section 6 of the HRA provides that public authorities must comply with ECHR rights
- Public bodies must always balance the competing rights to privacy and free expression between the public and the registrant.
Yet despite this, to date, 45 High Court Judges have made serious commentary on the decision-making of the NMC and their panels by allowing the appeal made by registrants on their outcomes. All of these cases hold key learning points, many of which are repeated more than once. Common themes of lack of transparency of evidence, biased investigations, and poor transparency around decision-making are repeatedly criticised by these esteemed judges and yet, it still goes on.
So is the stark reality that once you qualify as a nurse or midwife you have no recourse when you are wrongly sanctioned?
Don’t take our word for it – read the cases yourself.
-
Sarkodei-Gyan [2009] strike-off was overruled due to “procedural irregularities”. The committee had wrongly combined the fact-finding stage with the impairment stage. The court emphasised that in a health case, it was still necessary for the committee to apply the three-stage process of fact-finding, impairment, and, if appropriate, sanction.
- R (Jenkinson) (2009) EWHC 1111 (Admin) Following her conviction for grievous bodily harm with intent the claimant had been found guilty of misconduct by an earlier committee of the NMC and struck-off the nursing register. Her conviction was subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, when it became clear that the expert evidence founding the conviction, namely, how the ventilator of a patient in her charge operated, was erroneous. Once the conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, the subsequent finding of misconduct and sanction by the original committee fell away, and accordingly the original decision amounted to a miscarriage of justice based on a mistake.
-
Haywood, M (2009) assisted in a Panorama program in which undercover widespread neglect of elderly patients was struck off the nursing register. After Unite, her union, stepped in to assist. The NMC failed to acknowledge mistakes were made and the decision was too extreme but settled by mutual consent before the case went to court but the NMC failed to exonerate her completely adding a caution order to her record. This was one of the first cases of whistleblowing and the only referral source of the complaint to the NMC was the NHS trust that Ms Haywood raised concerns about. Her strike-off order was reduced to a 1-year caution at appeal.
-
Jatta, B (2009) overturned his sanction at appeal whereby the High Court judge described his case as “truly tragic” quoting his “exemplary working record” as context for more leniency.
-
Ogbonna (2010) overturned her strike-off by the NMC.
-
Raheem ( 2010) The High Court quashed the Striking off Order and referred back to a new CCC panel. The NMC notice of hearing had been returned unopened. However, the panel had undertaken a cursory assessment of whether to proceed in the absence of the practitioner, and such an approach was unlawful.
-
Sharp ( 2011 ) The judge in this appeal made interesting observations that the panel should not do “their own detective work” and in doing so made a “considerable error”. It served as a reminder that panels should not step outside the boundaries of the evidence presented to them.
-
BR (2012) the appeal was allowed as the NMC made an unlawful breach of the Claimant’s substantive legitimate expectation that she had no case to answer in relation to the allegations. The judge considered it disproportionate and unfair for the case to be re-examined.
-
Duthie, J (2012) won her appeal at the High Court who stated that the NMC failed to give adequate rationale for their decision-making.
-
Fabiyi ( 2012) The nurse was found guilty of dishonesty & struck off. The appeal judge ordered a retrial due to inadequate particulars being given in the charges and inappropriate legal directions being given to the adjudicating panel.
-
Fuyans (2012) the appeal was allowed and the strike-off order was replaced with a one-year suspension order.
-
Musonza (2012) As a self-litigant the nurse was successful in overturning a strike-off order, made in her absence, at a private hearing. The court held that the NMC had not given sufficient warning that the nurse should take legal advice and be represented, because of the potential outcomes. Also, there was a failure to sufficiently take into account the nurse’s evidence as it related to one of the allegations.
-
Perry (2012) The appeal was allowed and the interim suspension order was replaced with a conditions of practice.
-
“R” on behalf of “B” (2012) The registrant submitted that the IC’s action in overturning its earlier decision fell outside the very limited power of a professional regulatory body to correct its own mistakes. She argued in the alternative that by setting aside its previous decision, the NMC acted in breach of her procedural and substantive legitimate expectation that she could rely on the original decision.
-
Johnson and Maggs (2013), finally gained justice – following strike-off in 2007. It was duly accepted by the NMC that the delays violated the rights of the Registrants under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights to a hearing within a reasonable time.
-
Okeke ( 2013) Justice Leggat questioned whether the NMC could ever make a striking-off order solely on the basis of a lack of competence. Quashed and remitted to a new panel for rehearing.
-
McDaid, B (2013) successfully won her appeal against strike-off in the High Court. Accusations involved breaching confidentiality, dishonesty, unprofessional, aggressive behaviour and sending ‘aggressive and inappropriate correspondence to various individuals’. McDaid whistle blew against her trust.
-
Amao ( 2014) The nurse was struck-off the register. It was held at the high court that the information which emerged regarding the witnesses having given inaccurate evidence made it incumbent upon the Panel to tread carefully. This case acts as yet another warning to those involved in hearings where registrants are unrepresented. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision to strike off and declined to remit the matter (which would involve a greater sanction than the period of suspension as had already undergone as a result of the interim suspension order).
-
Ellingham, L (2014) The nursing press highlighted her problems with the impact of undergoing FtP despite being cleared “A spokeswoman said the regulator also worked to encourage the media to follow through cases and report the outcome where nurses were found not guilty.” To date, no article has been published in the mainstream press following an NMC outcome of no case to answer or of being overturned at High Court. There have been no statements released from the NMC on their comments on successful appeal cases.
-
“D ( 2014)” was a self-litigant and was able to prove to the High Court that the representation given at hearing was inadequate and thus the court quashed the strike-off order.
-
Isaghehi (2014) As a self-litigant was able to persuade the court to quash the strike-off order and replace it with a suspension order.
-
Lavis (2014) Justice Cobb found the panel lacked objectivity and did not place caution and had misapplied the GHOSH test. Conclusions were made about the midwife’s state of mind when writing contemporaneous notes which were misleading.
-
Thorneycroft (2014) the judge helped to clarify the position as to when it is appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and what considerations it will be necessary for a Panel to bear in mind when admitting the statements of absent witnesses. The case served as a reminder that in Fitness to Practise proceedings the Panel is the arbiter of both fact and law and as such it is not appropriate for questions as to the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be taken by Legal Assessors or Care Presenters on their behalf.
-
White (2014) this case came about during the Francis inquiry, key aspects in relation to submission and acceptance of anonymous hearsay evidence and the impact on whistleblowers.
- “O” V NMC (2015 EWHC 2949 (admin)) – the panel stuck the nurse off the register following a criminal conviction. Mr Justice Kerr stated: “where there are only two possible outcomes as to an appropriate sanction, for example as in this case between suspension and striking-off, it is critical that all available mitigation is considered during both the consideration of suspension and consideration of striking-off.” Justice Kerr allowed the appeal stating the strike-off was disproportionate and remitted the case to the NMC for suspension consideration.
-
Suddock, V (2015) managed to win her appeal against numerous charges which struck her off the nursing register. She was reinstated but has been unable to secure employment since due to the impact the process has had and the reputable harm. She attempted to take the NMC to court over defamation of character as a result but sadly lost as the NMC is protected against prosecution of this type by legislation which dates back to William of Orange – she is campaigning to change the Absolute Privilege Law. Absolute Privilege is described as being a law which “is one that immunizes an actor from suit, no matter how wrongful the action might be, and even though it is done with an improper motive. This privilege protects its holder from all harms arising from any action or inaction.” Until this law is changed it is unlikely that wrongful pursuit of cases will change. Vanessa continued to campaign to try to change the Absolute Privilege Law until her premature death in 2023.
-
Daly, J(2015) successfully self-litigated in the Court of Session, Scotland and overturned the NMC’s decision to suspend her.
-
Enemuwe, Doris ( 2015). Mr Justice Holman quashed the Committee’s finding that Ms Enemuwe’s fitness to practise was impaired, as well as the sanction of a twelve-month caution order
-
Amanda Jenkinson (2009 – 2019) had to wait 10 years after her criminal conviction was overturned in 2009 to get her strike-off order from the NMC revoked. `Unison who represented her described it as a landmark case. Despite having no intention of working again this nurse was determined to clear her name
-
Wisniewska (2016). Striking-off order replaced with 12 month suspension. This decision highlights that the primary function of a sanction is not punitive, but is intended to protect the public and wider public interest. Additionally, the court’s decision makes clear that mitigation must be considered at the relevant stages; a failure to do so may amount to a serious irregularity. Further, the court noted that although offences of dishonesty are undoubtedly serious, the return to practice of a highly skilled nurse may also be in the public interest.
-
Hindmarch(2016) won at appeal also with the judge criticising the provenience placed on previous investigations and the importance of contextual factors. The NMC was ordered to pay considerable costs.
-
Kamberova (2016) the impact of a long suspension period must be taken into account when deciding on proportionate sanctions. Interim orders must be taken into account for the full length and type of sanction. Justice Dingemans set aside the sanction imposed by the Committee and remitted the issue of sanction back to the Committee. In doing so, Mr Justice Dingemans stated that the Committee when re-determining the issue of sanction should have regard both to the period of interim suspension before the Committee’s determination in December 2015, and the period of suspension pending the appeal. The case also highlights issues with the wording of the sanction guidance.
-
“LM” (2016) The High Court allowed the appeal against a striking-off order imposed at a review hearing and expressed concern about the content of the Notice of Review hearing letter. The case was remitted to a different panel for review.
-
Annon, P (2017) The appeal judge felt that the Committee had been unjustly harsh in their approach to the Registrant’s evidence.
-
Watters, C (2017) won her appeal in part in the High Court as a self-litigant, opening up criticism of the NMC’s sanction guidance and that it needed to be more tailored to individual cases.
-
Lusinga in 2017 also won the appeal in the High Court where the judge was highly critical of the decision-making and sanction guidance used by the NMC.
-
Daly ( 2018) As a self-litigant, this nurse proved to the court that the sanction of strike-off was overly harsh. The court allowed the appeal; quashed the order, and substituted it with a conditions of practice order that she should undertake a recognised Return to Practice Nursing Course. Costs were awarded to the registrant.
-
El Karout, K (2019) won her appeal in the High Court as a self-litigant and quashed the strike-off order in full. The judge was highly critical of both the local investigation and the admissibility of hearsay evidence by the NMC, as well as the way the NMC communicated with the trust investigated to build a case. Three charges have been referred back to a new panel to hear, with strong guidance from Justice Spencer that quashing of these would be favourable. The judge also raised that an “enhanced standard of proof” should have been sought because of the criminal acquittal and not just reliance on the same evidence. The case is due to be reheard in December 2019 – 4 1/2 years after the original allegations.
-
February 2019 – the high court overturned the Interim Suspension orders of 7 nurses, out of 19 suspended from the trust in total. The judge ruled that the trust had failed to provide the NMC with enough evidence to support the allegations
-
El Karout, K (2020) – Kat returned to the High Court to challenge the 6 months suspension imposed after a SOR committee reviewed the findings of Justice Spencer from 2019. The judge here replaced the suspension with a shorter term of 4 months. Kat is still attempting to secure her PIN back from the NMC despite it now lapsing nearly 6 years after the original incident.
-
X v NMC (Sept 2021) Kings View Chambers successfully overturned a nurse’s striking-off order using an NMC internal mechanism for review. This is thought to be the first application in many years. When the nurse, midwife or nursing associate makes an application to review a striking-off order, the NMC will consider the merits of the application. If the evidence submitted as part of the application is evidence that was not available at the time of the original hearing and could have made a real difference to the panel’s final decision, then the NMC will refer the application to a Fitness to Practise Committee and that hearing will follow the same procedure as that of a restoration hearing right to request a review is laid down in the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 Article 30, paragraph 7 which outlines: “Where new evidence relevant to a striking-off order becomes available after the making of the order, the Fitness to Practise Committee may review it and article 33(4) to (8) shall apply as if it were an application for restoration made under that Article.”
-
Simpson v NMC (29th April 2021) A registered nurse since 1993 experienced problems following the first time undertaking online revalidation – the registrant realised a mistake she made on it and immediately made enquiries to retract the application. The NMC started an investigation stating she had fraudently procured her revalidation and set about with dishonesty charges. She was informed she would be removed from the register with immediate effect but that an interim suspension order would put in place for the period of appeal. Following a hearing before the Outer House of the Court of Session, Lord Bannatyne terminated the interim suspension order and ordered that the appellant’s name be restored to the register on 24 May 2019. The appellant appealed to the sheriff of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh seeking to have the Committee’s decision quashed and taken off her record. The court could not see reason to quash as they were seen to be following process left to them but agreed that the registrants registration should be restored with immediate effect. The NMC were made liable to the appellant for the expenses of this appeal.
-
JOANNE BUDZICHOWSKA v NMC (17.10.24) TheHigh Court quashed the strike-off order replacing with a 12 month suspension stating it was more appropriate – represented by RCN. Appellant had an interim suspension order placed on 5th June 2024 for 18 months but claimed it was excessive as case was due to be heard on 5th November – NMC conceded that 12 months was sufficient.
-
“R” on application of Ibrahim v NMC (14.11.24) This case was supported by the RCN. The nurse was a RMN since 2011. The RCN grounds were that factual and misconduct stages failed to mention or engage with submission on the facts and Impairment stage. The panel put too great an emphasis on and drew impermeable inferences from what they wrongly considered to be lack of insight. The judge felt that no sanction was needed as the misconduct should have been decided to a lesser degree. He stated that the NMC had not considered reflective pieces, as well as the fact that no other evidence of regulatory concern was present at any point, stating:
“I have found that the Panel was wrong to omit to make findings which related to the Appellant’s case, to fail to integrate such findings on the issue of misconduct and to omit important factors in finding impairment. My judgment in these respects is not based on the evidence of witnesses but on the basis of the same documents as were before the Panel”.
The judge added commentary around the NMC’s heavy backlog and that if it was referred back to a new panel it could not be dealt with expediently, stating:
“I decline to remit the case to the Respondent. I allow the appeal and quash the factual findings, the findings of misconduct and impairment, the sanction and resulting orders.”
The judge also took the unusual step of awarding costs (£8,809) awarding more than was requested by the registrant’s team as the judge felt that some aspects of the schedule of charges were “surprisingly low”. -
Laura Yalda Hindle v NMC (2025)
Judge Alan Bates was highly critical of the NMC’s conduct when investigating, the panel’s examination of evidence and weight given to live witnesses, the inability to take into account the 4.5 years of exemplary service since allegations and finally the possibility that the nature of the referral could have been vexatious. The NMC still does not have a policy on vexatious referrals. The judge also made commentary about the low amount that the RCN had claimed when costs were awarded stating they were low in comparison to the work put in to prepare the case.
Summary of common themes in cases:
| Theme | Relevant case |
| Excessive sanction | Budzichowska 2024, Daly 2018, Anon 2017, Watters 2017, Suddock 2015, Aman 2014, BR 2012 |
| Hearsay | El Karout (2019), Suddock 2015, White2014 |
| Poor explanation of reasoning and / or decision making | Lusinga, 2017 & Watters 2017, Duthie 2012 |
| Poor consideration of mitigation / reflections/ context | Hindmarsh 2016, El Karout 2019, Wisneiska 2016, Suddock 2015, “O” 2015 |
| Poor examination of evidence | Hindle 2025, No 39 ( 2019), Suddock 2015, Thorneycroft 2015, Musonza 2012 |
| Potential retaliative or vexatious referral | Hindle 2025, McDaid 2013, Haywood 2009 |
| Low costs claimed by registrant’s side | “R” 2024 & Hindle 2025 |
Husband has received 18 months suspension- extremely harsh for his misdemeanour. NMC admitted this would cause severe financial problems. They don’t care. We will lose our home. NMC don’t give a toss about how this will affect me, his wife, also a nurse of 30 years and an innocent party. They’re okay, they still get their salaries.
so sorry to hear this – I will email you separately
So sorry to hear this
Please fight back
Do not give up
I saw my self in the description!
Received 18 months for breaking the conduct unwillingly.
Now been referred to FtP.
I have suffered a lot of damage in my confidence, financial loss and going into financial debt, maybe loosing my home as well as I can’t afford to pay mortgage as well as current cost of living.
I have isolated myself in the home and waiting scared for my future for the outcome.
I will never be the happy, confident, skilfull nurse with ambition and career driven as I was before.
Nurses are members of public and they are human prone to mistakes too.
I wish I can have the right support for this as vouncilibg does not help.
thank you for your brave comments – so sorry to hear the impact it is having on you but now you have found our support group hopefully we can help you through – keep talking
The process is unfair and takes a long time where people are not heard or given hearings to speak for themselves for over a year and a half.
We are stopped doing a job we have been good at we are subjected to having bad things written about us which are not true.
We are not paid for our loss of work.
We are not supported either.
I now awaiting the outcome of a hearing. Referred after I left employment, based on the lies of someone ultimately dismissed by the charity that employed us both. Regardless of the outcome I wish to take it into the public arena as I feel strongly it is in the public’s interest to understand the farcical processes, and unjust treatment nurses are subject to.
I fail to understand why the NMC CEO is not, nor has ever been a registrant?
Thoughts?
I don’t understand that either, or how nobody on the panel was clinical. How do they even understand the information presented to them?
I am also more than half way through an interim suspension order which is based on lies. I raised concerns through the appropriate channels and lies were told about me which means I am the subject of a he said/she said investigation with no evidence at all. Nobody cares, the NMC were very aware that I am the sole provider in my home but still gave an interim suspension order and my salary was immediately reduced to that of a band 2. The debts are rising and I have lost all faith in the NMC and the profession as a whole.