Written by a former NMC staff member and whistleblower.
TRIGGER WARNING: this article contains details of suicide. It has been edited to follow Samaritans reporting guidelines.
Shortly after 8.00am on 21 April 2025, the body of former Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) whistleblower Jan Tari was discovered by a dog walker in a wood. He had taken his own life.
At his inquest, the coroner found that, on the balance of probabilities, Jan “was distressed and vulnerable and probably suffering from depression.” He explained that Jan “was involved in an employment dispute, the effect of which was he lost his employment” and that “on the balance of probabilities, this exacerbated his depression.”
The coroner noted that Jan’s death was a public display, commenting that “it is comparatively unusual for people to carry out an act as Jan did in such a public place. It appears to me that he wished to be seen” as “Most people will take their own life in a more private situation.”
The Previous Attempt
Jan had previously attempted to take his own life in a more private situation. On 16 September 2024, Jan emailed a suicide note to David Warren, then Chair of the NMC Council, saying, “To the NMC: when you read this I should, if all has gone to plan, be dead. You are not the only reason, but be assured, you were the final and most massive straw. If losing my life is worth getting an NMC that is competent and what the nurses deserve (in other words, not this NMC) it’s a fine price to pay.”
He accused the NMC of failing to properly investigate the concerns he raised about data malpractice, stating that the NMC’s “upper tiers are wilfully incompetent; you preserve that incompetence for the sake of keeping your jobs and to the cost of those you regulate. You are incompetent to the point of corruption.” He was found by a friend. An ambulance was called and Jan was admitted to hospital.
Jan’s role at the NMC
Jan was a database developer at the NMC between 12 December 2022 and 29 August 2023. He described having decades of experience yet said he had never “seen data handled so badly” as he believed it was at the NMC. In his account, “the skill level was low and there seemed to be little desire to increase it,” and “working practices were terrible.”
Jan began raising concerns about what he believed were dangerous data management practices within weeks of starting his role. Jan believed those concerns were not engaged with as he expected, and that they were instead reframed as an issue with his own understanding by his line manager. For many whistleblowers, this sequence of raising concerns followed by a shift in focus onto the individual may feel familiar.
Jan’s probation was extended and he was set new objectives, including delivering training to the team. He later said, “As time went on I also felt that I was frozen out of a great deal of interaction I was supposed to provide such as database training and being able to help with their database performance problems.” He described sending offers of training that went unanswered, which he believed made it difficult for him to meet his objectives. As he put it, “As I was likely the most experienced person by far in that company in the area of these databases, it was incomprehensible.”
On 17 August 2023, Jan submitted a detailed grievance and whistleblowing disclosure, setting out what he believed to be serious failures in data management. He also described the personal impact, writing that for “the best part of the year I have delivered almost nothing of value. My physical and mental health has suffered, my reputation here is an embarrassment to me. This has been the saddest experience of my working life.” Nine days later, he was dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal
Jan’s earlier suicide attempt came just weeks after he had challenged his dismissal at an Employment Tribunal hearing held between 15 and 19 August 2024. In the lead-up to that hearing, he was told by the NMC’s lawyer that “I have checked with my client and it confirms that the Teams messages sent by you no longer exist as all accounts are deactivated after 30 days of the termination date” and claimed “My client contact has no record of you asking for Teams messages to be preserved.”
Jan did not accept this. He had emails showing he had requested preservation immediately after his dismissal, and the Teams messages did exist beyond 30 days as the NMC located them in response to a Subject Access Request submitted by Jan on 7 November 2023. It had just been provided to him in an unreadable format.
Jan submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO), but the backlog meant the issue was not resolved in time for his hearing. The effect was that Jan went into his tribunal hearing without the evidence he believed he needed to prove his case.
Jan’s claim ultimately failed on a technical legal threshold. The Judge at Jan’s hearing found Jan to be an honest witness who “was at pains to give accurate information” even where it did not help his own case. He noted in his conclusions “It might be said that Mr Ahmad did not adapt his management style and there was a wider failure of management (including perhaps Mr Cahill) to ensure cooperation by members of the team with the Claimant. I recognise that the Claimant may have suffered something of an injustice in that respect. He had I find a genuine frustration that his undoubted expertise in relation to database management was not being put to best use by the Respondent. This is part of the picture, but ultimately not factors which cause the claim to succeed.”
The Information Commissioner’s Office Decision
On 9 December 2024, the ICO wrote to Jan and told him that “It is very clear that the Nursing and Midwifery Council have infringed on their data protection obligations in respect of the subject access request to them on 7 November 2023. I will be writing to them to advise that I uphold your complaint but before I do I just want to be clear whether or not you have now received all the outstanding information you expected to receive or if there are any outstanding queries.” Jan confirmed that he had not received any further disclosure from the NMC since he first contacted them.
On 18 February 2025, the ICO wrote to Jan again and apologised for the delay in providing an outcome, explaining that “It has been difficult to obtain a full and final response from the organisation and we appreciate that you still consider some matters to be unresolved and there is a question that some of your personal information may still be missing and not have been supplied to you.” The ICO shared the response the NMC had provided on 13 February 2025, which appeared to accept that the Microsoft Teams messages that Jan had requested did exist but claimed that these could not be provided to Jan in a usable format.
The ICO did not accept the NMC’s explanation and told Jan that it had instructed the NMC to supply him with any information that was outstanding and resupply his personal data in a format that was accessible to him within the next 14 days. It also told Jan that “We expect them to work with you to put things right and to learn from their experiences and improve their practices.” As far as I am aware, at the time of Jan’s death the NMC had still not given Jan all the information the ICO had directed it to disclose. This meant that even after the Tribunal, Jan was still being denied access to the evidence he believed would prove what had happened to him.
Jan’s concerns about disclosure
In his interview with NMC Watch, Jan spoke about what he believed was the withholding of crucial evidence before his hearing, and the impact that had on him. He described it as “the dishonesty of destroying data, which could have provided evidence” and said “I have no doubt there were documents about a lot of documentation about my concerns about the data. Yeah. They didn’t provide that. That’s just dishonest. I mean, it’s actually illegal is my understanding, but they did it.”
Jan considered this conduct to be part of a wider pattern, pointing to how “James Titchcombe unveiled a similar thing, didn’t he, when he had a huge amount of money spent on redacting communications between him and the NMC. And that all took years and years and years for that to come out. But it was, you know, there was supposed to be lessons learned and, you know, bigger policies, etc, etc. But then this shows us that actually this seems to be something that is just done and not changed, which is really sad to hear, you know, really sad to hear.”
Jan’s Hospital Stays
Between September 2024 and February 2025, Jan was detained under the Mental Health Act on two occasions because he continued to say he intended to end his life. He later described that experience in an email sent on 21 February 2025 to senior figures across the system, including the NMC’s Chief Executive and Registrar Paul Rees, NMC Council Whistleblowing Lead Eileen McEneaney, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Health Minister Karin Smyth, the Health and Social Care Committee, the NMC’s Case Officer at the Charity Commission, and Alan Clamp, Chief Executive Officer of the Professional Standards Authority. He wrote:
“I lost the tribunal, tried to kill myself, very nearly succeeded (it was not a cry for help). Two weeks in hospital followed by nearly 8 weeks in two psychiatric wards. I’ll skip my experiences in there but suffice to say seeing two people having screaming meltdowns and needing to be physically restrained for their and others’ safety is something I very much wish I could forget.
I am now not well. I can barely concentrate; it’s taken me two days to write this short email. The first time in my life I don’t want to work (I used to love work), I just can’t face the thought of it, and I’m close to unemployable anyway. There is no fight left in me, and I think that was the whole point of the NMC putting me through this.”
At his inquest, Jan’s patient notes described him as polite, calm and settled, compliant with medication. They said he did his laundry, interacted well with staff and patients, ate well, slept well, and had capacity. There was no evidence of disordered thoughts. Jan had just reached the point where no one was listening, and he felt that suicide was the only way to bring attention to the concerns that he was raising.
On ward rounds Jan repeated to the doctors that he had been “subjected to bullying and harassment from his seniors” at the NMC and described it as “a terrible working environment.” He said that after speaking up, he had been “cut off in the company,” left isolated and unable to do his job. He told doctors he intended to take his own life because “I have a chance to fix things” and “I want them to fix it and they won’t rectify.”
On 21 January 2025, Jan told doctors he did not want to be on the ward because he needed to “tie up loose ends.” On 4 February 2025, he told doctors about “having work to do throughout this day and fighting the NMC” and doctors noted that “There were reports regarding evidence and needing to provide more evidence still.” This appears to have been a reference to the outstanding information Jan had complained to the ICO about, which he was still trying to obtain at that time.
NMCWatch
Jan had copied NMCWatch into his suicide note, having identified Cathryn Watters, NMCWatch Founder and Director, as one of the few people he believed was consistently courageous enough to speak truth to power about the serious harm the NMC was causing to individuals engaged in its processes. I had also been in touch with Cathryn at the time for the same reason.
Ijeoma Omambala KC
On 16 October 2023, I warned the NMC Executive Team and Council, Charity Commission, and Professional Standards Authority that the scope of Ijeoma Omambala KC’s investigation into the treatment of whistleblowers was too narrow, saying:
“My whistleblowing document explicitly says that I have concerns about the “systematic harassment of staff who challenge practices in any way.” It is true that… I am one of those members of staff. However… you heard directly from several other members of staff who… bravely told you that when concerns are raised, either nothing is done about it or there are consequences for the person who raised the concerns.
This issue is far bigger than me and it is the heart of what causes the culture of fear at the NMC. It is what enables managers to behave badly, knowing that if concerns are raised about them, the NMC will protect them. Ijeoma needs to hear from more of my colleagues who have experienced this treatment so that how I have been treated is not written up as an isolated incident.”
My warnings were ignored and so, on 22 October 2024, after being introduced to Jan through NMCWatch, I contacted Ijeoma and urged her to interview him – explaining that his experience “sounds chillingly similar to mine.”
Ijeoma interviewed Jan on 11 November 2024. On 15 November 2024, Jan emailed me and told that she had been “very interested and very nice.” He said that he looked forward to reading her report, and that “I sincerely hope good things come of this.” Jan believed, at the time of his death, that Ijeoma’s report might finally lead to accountability.
Shaming the NMC to force action
On 5 February 2025, I raised concerns with senior leaders at the NMC, including Chief Executive Paul Rees, about how Jan’s whistleblowing disclosures had been handled. I explained that the investigation had been led by the individual responsible for the same data and governance function that Jan’s concerns were about. I escalated that it appeared from the outcome letter sent to Jan that no primary evidence had been reviewed and no attempt was made to identify where the errors were coming from or what risk that posed.
Instead, the investigation consisted of a conversation with another leader in the same area, and reliance on strategies that didn’t address the specific concerns that Jan had raised, and a PowerPoint presentation that was put together two months after Jan had already been dismissed. I also challenged the conclusion that the risk to the public was “low”, highlighting that if the reporting data drawn from the live systems was inaccurate, then this could impact Council and Parliament’s ability to ensure that the NMC is fulfilling its statutory functions. This, in my view, would pose a risk to the public.
No attempt was made to investigate the substance of the concerns I raised. Instead, the response focused on questioning the tone in which they had been raised. By then, Jan had lost faith in the system anyway. On 20 February 2025 he emailed me and explained “what I’m trying to do is make a splash because I don’t think asking for a formal investigation is going to get anywhere. You’ve kicked off enough of those and been stonewalled because they can. That’s the problem, and that’s why I think this has to go public.”
He sent me a further email the following day saying, “I would also like to repeat that you have pushed very hard on the formal and proper way of doing things and the NMC has screwed you over by not responding ethically. Nor, it seems, will they ever. It is a different approach needed? If so, is shaming them in public a valid alternative? Because that’s what I’m trying to do.”
After being discharged from hospital, Jan began tying up what he had described as the loose ends. On 15 April 2025 I emailed the NMC and asked, “Please confirm that you have passed to Ijeoma the full HR casework for Jan Tari and Sam Foster so that she can compare our treatment and decide whether the NMC “followed our processes and practice for similar whistleblowing cases and HR casework.”
I explained that I had copied them into my email in case the NMC required their consent for this. Jan replied to that email, which Paul Rees, Ron Barclay-Smith, and Eileen McEneaney were all copied into, on the same day saying, “Any consent needed from me is hereby given – Jan Tari.” This was the last time I ever heard from Jan. Six days later, he acted on what he had said. He took his own life in a public place, in the hope that it would finally force attention onto the issues he believed had been ignored.
My last meeting with Ijeoma Omambala KC
On 26 June 2025 I had my last meeting with Ijeoma Omambala KC to provide her with an update before she finished writing up her reports. During this meeting I told her plainly that I did not believe the NMC’s culture had improved under Paul Rees and Ron Barclay-Smith and that, in my experience, the NMC’s treatment of staff, registrants and referrers who raised concerns had actually become worse on their watch than when I first spoke up.
Ijeoma told me she would be taking a few weeks off from writing her report and explained the personal reason for doing so. She gave me permission to disclose this reason to the Professional Standards Authority when I met with them that afternoon and said the NMC was already aware. She did not say the NMC had indicated this brief pause would put her role at risk or that she would be decommissioned as a result.
After speaking with Ijeoma, I realised that I had not received any responses to my text messages or emails to Jan for some time. I tried to call him, but the number was no longer in service. It was at that point that I feared the worst and began searching through coroner lists. I found his name on a list for West London Coroners Court, where an inquest into his death had been opened on 20 May 2025.
That evening, I notified the NMC and its key stakeholders, highlighting that Jan had warned this is what he intended to do. I also notified Ijeoma and explained that I had more information that Jan had shared with me if it would be helpful for her report.
Ijeoma responded the next day and said, “I saw your message last night. Jan’s death is truly horrific news. I am so sad that it ended this way for him. I really do not know what to say.” She explained that I should send her anything that I wanted so that she had it and if there was an opportunity to work on the report during her break then she could. Again, there was no indication the NMC had discussed decommissioning her. She closed her email saying, “Thinking of you and all those who tried to help and support Jan.” That was the last email I received from her.
The NMC’s Response to Jan’s Death
The day after I notified the NMC of Jan’s death, it appears the General Counsel team sought confidential legal advice from Bates Wells, a law firm brought in by Chief Executive Paul Rees earlier that year to advise and represent the NMC in high-risk claims where litigation was anticipated. Two weeks later, the NMC told me it had decided to decommission Ijeoma, and replace her with Lucy McLynn, a partner in the employment team at Bates Wells.
As I understood it, this meant that what had been presented as an independent report into my treatment as a whistleblower was instead now being written by the law firm that was advising and representing the NMC on defending whistleblowing claims. To date, the NMC has refused to share in response to formal information requests from both me and my MP, the process it followed to procure Lucy, and the conflict checks undertaken.
The NMC revised the terms of reference from those originally set for Ijeoma Omambala KC by removing the wording relating to “similar whistleblowing cases and HR casework” and narrowing the focus to “an investigation into our treatment of the whistleblower, and the handling of their concerns.”
At the same time, the NMC changed its instruction to produce “a confidential report” that would not be published “as it will contain information that could enable the whistleblower to be identified by colleagues within the organisation and we have a duty to protect the whistleblower’s confidentiality,” to “This report will be publishable and will therefore need to take account of UK GDPR obligations and reflect our duty of care to all NMC employees and others.”
The practical effect of this was that the report, which the NMC paid Bates Wells £86,214 to produce, was (in my view) written at such a high-level that it lacked the detail required to enable meaningful scrutiny and challenge of the actions taken by the NMC and the conclusions reached.
Although Lucy’s report refers to several “missed opportunities” in how my concerns were handled, in my view the most significant missed opportunity was the removal of the chance for Ijeoma to complete her work. She had heard directly from Jan before his death, and may have been able to provide insight into one of the clearest and most serious examples of harm arising from the NMC’s treatment of a whistleblower.
The Pattern of Harm
Jan’s experience is not an isolated incident. The Independent Culture Review commissioned in response to my whistleblowing disclosures said, “We spoke to one former member of staff who was hospitalised because of stress. They said their directorate was a hotbed of bullying, racism and toxic behaviour. But the people running it were too powerful and complaints were always ignored.
HR was also frequently cited as a major barrier to complaints being heard. “It was completely dysfunctional and a waste of time,” said one. “The hierarchical structure here is so bad,” added another. “I’ve never seen it anywhere else. There are people here who enjoy a God-like status. They can never be challenged.”
It went on to note, “A further humiliation was achieved through bullying and we heard many detailed stories of sadistic managers who seemed to take pleasure in reducing staff to tears. “We should never have hired you,” “you are utterly useless and should not be here” and “why don’t you just leave?” were some of the more polite comments that were relayed to us. Others are unprintable.
In one case, an employee described being so traumatised by bullying that he crashed his car while thinking of an abusive conversation he’d had with his manager.
Against that backdrop, the idea that serious harm could be caused to a staff member if the NMC did not effectively address the issues raised about its culture should have been foreseeable.
I have supported a number of individuals now who describe being pushed to the brink after engaging with NMC processes. One referrer wrote the process was an “enormous burden,” marked by “the utter contempt the NMC shows to us,” and said it caused “huge emotional distress and damage.” She told me she had felt that suicide was “an inevitable consequence” because she believed it was the only way her concerns about public safety would be taken seriously.
More broadly though, it is the registrants who fund the NMC and are subject to its processes who are among those most directly affected. Since 2019, 20 nurses and midwives have died by suicide. On 25 March 2026, The Independent reported that a coroner had decided to consider whether the NMC’s actions caused or contributed to the death of Amelia Morten-Scott, a nurse who died in October 2023. The article notes that “the findings of an internal report carried out by the NMC into its actions following Ms Morten-Scott’s death will also feature as part of the scope of the inquest.” An NMC spokesperson is quoted acknowledging the tragedy in Amelia’s death and offering condolences to her family and friends.
Ongoing Defensive Culture
On 19 August 2025, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the NMC about Jan and explained that it was relevant to “the NMC’s treatment of individuals who are struggling with their mental health.” I told the NMC that I had spoken to Jan’s next of kin, alongside Cathryn Watters of NMCWatch, and that I had their consent to keep pushing for answers on his behalf. I also referenced the death of nurse Amelia Morten-Scott in my request.
My questions were straightforward. I asked about whether the NMC had investigated Jan’s case, whether it had complied with the ICO’s instruction to provide his data before his death, whether his records had been shared with Ijeoma Omambala KC in line with his consent, whether his death had been reported to the Charity Commission, whether any internal review had been undertaken, and what, if anything, had been learned.
After two months of silence, I received a response refusing to provide me with an answer to my questions, claiming my request was “vexatious” and that “whilst we appreciate you may have a personal interest in the information you are seeking, we do not consider that there is a substantial wider public interest in disclosure.” I was accused of engaging in a “campaign in collusion” with NMCWatch because I said that Cathryn had spoken to Jan’s next of kin with me.
At the same time, questions raised in Council meetings about the actions taken following Jan’s death were, in my opinion, evaded and shut down by Paul Rees and Ron Barclay-Smith, and later omitted from the published record. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the NMC has not offered any condolences to Jan’s next of kin, despite sending a member of its General Counsel team to sit at his inquest. Taken together, these responses raise serious questions about transparency, accountability, and whether any meaningful learning has taken place.
A beautiful, clever, funny, selfless and kind man
Those who were close to Jan described him as “a beautiful, clever, funny, selfless and kind man, with so much more to him than the world could see.” They told me they felt “utterly heartbroken” about losing “someone so incredibly important to us,” and said that “we are still trying to find our way through each day without him” because “honestly, we are all completely lost and broken without him and his love.”
They also recognised how important it was to Jan to get change. In an interview with NMCWatch, Jan’s best friend asked the NMC to “Please take accountability for your staff’s concerns. Please listen to people who entrust you with their careers and their livelihoods. You know, jobs can come and go, but you don’t have to be destroyed from the inside.”
The Jan Tari Memorial Fund
NMCWatch was set up as a small Community Interest Company to support registrants going through the fitness to practise process. It now finds itself being a source of support for whistleblowers and referrers who describe being harmed through their engagement with the NMC, and has reached over 900 members.
Jan believed deeply in that work. In his interview with NMCWatch, he said, “I’m so dedicated to making sure NMCWatch keeps going, because it’s about getting people together and making you realise that you’re not on your own. And it’s not only you that’s experienced it. Your situation might be unique, might be different. But, you know, there’ll be a lot of similar themes with the way that you’ve been treated and experienced it.”
Jan believed his death might force change. Whether or not that proves to be the case, there remains a clear need to support those who feel impacted by these processes and to ensure that their concerns are heard.
The Jan Tari Memorial Fund has been set up to provide that support and to continue pressing for accountability and improvement. If you are able to, please donate to this worthy cause. If his death is to mean anything, it must lead to change.
Support the fund:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-jan-tari-memorial-fund
Final Note: This account reflects my experience, Jan’s own words, and the documents available to me, including the findings of the coroner. I recognise that the NMC may have a different perspective. However, given the seriousness of the issues raised, I believe there is a strong public interest in transparency, accountability, and scrutiny.
