Blog
Keeping the peace at Christmas – top tips for shared parenting over the festive season
Lauren Evans
13 October 2015
Case update: Nurse succeeds on appeal after Court of Appeal (Scotland) find NMC panel failed to address registrant’s inadequate representation and wrongly accepted methodology put forward by NMC
D v Nursing and Midwifery Council Court of Session (Inner House, Extra Division), 4 November 2014.
D was a registered nurse and the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) case was that between 23 May and 6 October 2011, D had taken small to large amounts of the anti-nausea drug, ‘cyziline’ from hospital supplies without authorisation. The fitness to practise panel at the NMC found the allegations proved, and imposed a striking off order from the NMC’s register for serious misconduct involving dishonesty. D appealed against this decision.
15 September 2015
Case Update: PSA finds sanction of 2 year caution unduly lenient after panel did not consider all the material circumstances of social worker’s dishonesty
Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Gemma Williamson [2015] EWHC 2420 (Admin)
Judgement date: 10 July 2015
Fitness to practise allegations:
A Panel (the Panel) of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) heard the disciplinary hearing against Ms Williamson (W) on 1 and 2 December 2014.
10 August 2015
Case Update: Court of Appeal find GMC wrongly applied ‘5 year rule’ and confirms regulators have powers to revoke any decision where there was a mistake regarding underlying facts
29 July 2015
R (on the application of Dr Anup Chaudhuri v the General Medical Council [2015] EWCA 6621 (Admin)
Background
The Claimant, Dr Chaudhuri, a general practitioner (‘Dr C’), applied for Judicial Review of the GMC’s decision pursuant to Rule 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (‘the 5 year rule’), which is set out below:
“No allegation shall proceed further, if at the time it is first made or first comes to the attention of the General Council, more than five-years have elapsed since the most recent events giving rise to the allegation, unless the Registrar considers that it is in the public interest, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, for it to proceed.”
30 July 2015
Case Update: High Court hold that panel of the NMC were unduly lenient in imposing 4 month suspension for dishonest nurse
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council, Mr D Wilson, [2015] EWHC 1887 (Admin)
Judgement Date: 5 June 2015
This was an appeal brought by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) pursuant to section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Professions Act from a decision made by a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the Panel) of the NMC on 9 January 2015 to suspend the registrant of Mr Wilson for 4 months. The appeal was supported by the NMC. Both the Authority and the NMC submit that the decision of the Panel on sanction in this particular case was wrong, and they invited the learned Judge to quash the suspension and to substitute the suspension for an order striking Mr Wilson off the register.
30 July 2015
Case Update: High Court confirms that disciplinary panels should not refer to findings of fact from previous investigations which could taint the panel’s findings in relation to a registrant’s fitness to practise
Doris Enemuwe v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin)
Judgement Date 8 July 2015
The appellant was employed as an agency midwife, and on 14 September 2012, the appellant was working at St Thomas’ Hospital when she was assisting with the birth of Patient A’s baby, who was accompanied by her husband during the birth. All charges, with one exception, related to the appellant’s behaviour or performance in relation to the 14 September 2012 date, when she was assisting with patient A’s birth. The final charge related to the appellant taking home confidential medical records following the internal Trust investigation, which were sensitive and confidential and should not have been stored at the appellant’s home.