Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
12 November 2015
Case update: High Court confirms NMC panel’s original decision flawed as they failed to take into account all mitigation at sanction stage
O v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2015 EWHC 2949 (Admin)
Judgement Date 22 October 2015
Background
Mrs O (the appellant) a qualified nurse of Nigerian descent, settled in the UK in 2007 along with her husband and three young children. The appellant worked for the National Health Service (NHS) from approximately 2010. In November 2012, the children were taken into care and the appellant and her husband were charged with ill treatment, pursuant to s.1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It was alleged that when their children behaved badly, the appellant and her husband would beat the children with a cane or a wire coat hanger. The appellant and her husband pleaded not guilty at trial, which meant that their children had to give evidence against them. In March 2014, both parents were convicted and received 36 week custodial sentences. The appellant later explained that she had entered a not guilty plea out of ignorance in that corporal punishment was acceptable in Nigeria and she was unaware that such a form of chastisement was wrong and illegal in the UK. Between April and June 2013, the appellant attended a parenting course and a parenting assessment concluded that the children would not be at significant risk if returned to their parents. The appellant completed a reflective statement whilst in prison and upon her release conducted further research in respect of parenting skills. She apologised to her children and obtained professional testimonials. Meanwhile, the appellant’s conviction was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
2 November 2015
What standards and behaviour are expected of health and care professional students? HCPC Consultation on revised guidance for students
In October, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) launched a consultation seeking the views of their stakeholders on their draft revised guidance on conduct and ethics for students.
The HCPC regulates 16 professions including paramedics, practitioner psychologists and social workers in England.
23 October 2015
Case update: Upper Tribunal finds FCA sanction was not commensurate with facts found proved by FCA (then the FSA) and reduces financial penalty imposed
Angela Burns v The Financial Conduct Authority (previously the Financial Services Authority) [2015] UKUT 0252 (TCC)
Angela Burns was an FCA regulated Approved Person holding Controlled Function 2 (“CF2”) non-executive director (“NED”) positions at two organisations: Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society (“MGM”) from 19 January 2009 until her resignation on 22 May 2011; and Teachers Provident Society (“Teachers”) from 5 May 2010 until she resigned on 31 May 2011.
21 October 2015
Good news, bad news - costs in private prosecutions
Former Leeds United Managing Director, David Haigh, learnt the hard way that costs in private prosecutions are a double-edged sword and an issue that requires careful consideration before embarking on such proceedings.
20 October 2015
Case update: High Court confirms ‘moral opprobrium’ is part of test for determining unacceptable professional conduct as Osteopath’s appeal is dismissed and admonishment sanction stands
Shaw v General Osteopathic Council [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin)
Mr. Shaw (“S”), appealed to the High Court, against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Osteopathic Council ("the panel") on 29 January 2015. The panel admonished S for unacceptable professional conduct, pursuant to section 20(2) under the Osteopaths Act 1993 ("the Act"), and found "conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath”. The sanction of Admonishment is the least serious penalty that can be imposed upon registered osteopaths. Other sanctions available were conditions of practice, suspension and the most serious, removal from the register.
S‘s appeal was against the panel’s decision in relation to the finding of unacceptable professional conduct and that this decision was wrong, and therefore no sanction should have followed.