High Court Judgements: PSA v NMC (2019)

19 Apr, 2021

Justice Farbey (09.05.19) in the case of the Professional Standards Authority V’s Nursing and Midwifery Council

  • A panel of the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee determined that the second respondent (who is a mental health nurse regulated by the NMC) should be subject to a caution following disciplinary proceedings that arose from her mental health assessment of a person whom I shall call Patient A. Shortly after that assessment, Patient A was found dead.
  • The panel determined that the respondent’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct on the grounds that public confidence in the nursing profession would be undermined in the absence of a finding of impairment. It determined that there was no impairment on public protection grounds. Given the limited basis of its impairment finding, the panel imposed a three-year caution order as opposed to a more serious sanction.
  • The registrant accepted all charges and her part in the outcome for the patient.
  • The respondent assessed Patient A with another considerably more experienced nurse whom I shall call Registrant C. Her case too was referred to the NMC. The panel heard both cases together. In relation to Registrant C, the panel concluded that her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct and imposed a caution order for a period of three years. The PSA lodged an appeal to this court. Both the NMC and Registrant C conceded the appeal. By a consent order dated 26 September 2018, Registrant C’s caution was quashed and a six-month suspension order was substituted.
  • Currently, the PSA only take cases to the High Court to challenge the decision-making of the NMC when they feel the outcome of the hearing has been too lenient. They do so because they work on behalf of the public who have no mechanism to appeal. If a case is perceived as too excessive, the registrant has to appeal this themselves or with their legal representative if their union is in agreement – this rarely happens.
  • Case remitted to a new FtP panel for review of sanction.

Related posts:

Continuous Interim Order extensions: what can be done?

For a long time now it has become almost routine that the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) will apply for extensions to interim orders due to cases not being concluded during the 18 months they are in place for. Whilst the NMC recognises the need to cut down on the...

Why does the NMC keep ignoring Appeals judges?

Since 2009 we know of more than 50 cases where a High Court Judge has ruled that the decision by an NMC Fitness to Practice panel or application for interim order extension is wrong. Seven of these cases were in 2025 and among an increasing number being supported by...

Another NMC ‘dishonesty’ charge fail

Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council: When Process Fails, Outcomes Cannot Be Trusted. The High Court judgment in Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council is the latest in a long line of appellate decisions exposing serious flaws in the way fitness to practise (FtP)...

NMCWatch statement for National Safeguarding Adults Week 2025

Protecting patients means protecting those who speak up. This Safeguarding Week, NMCWatch highlights a critical gap in the UK’s health and regulatory system: the absence of meaningful protection for professionals who raise concerns in the public interest. Our support...

Ishbel Straker fights back

Today Ishbel Straker begins a campaign about the issues she has experienced when referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). She has told LBC she has been subjected to “vindictive, calculated and malicious” behaviour by the NMC after whistleblowing on a...