In this claim for judicial review, the High Court quashed the NMC's findings of misconduct against the two registrants, J and M, after it was found that there was insufficient evidence to find the
In this claim for judicial review, the High Court quashed the NMC's findings of misconduct against the two registrants, J and M, after it was found that there was insufficient evidence to find the allegations proved and that in any case such evidence would have been incapable of amounting to misconduct.
Allegations had been brought against the registrants, the manager and deputy manager of a nursing home, by the NMC in respect of misconduct between 1998 and 2002. The registrants were first notified of the allegations by the NMC in September 2003. Following an investigation which took over two years, the registrants were notified of the charges against them three and a half years later in late April/May 2007. The NMC Professional Conduct Committee hearing of their case commenced in February 2009, and was heard over a period of 86 days, concluding in December 2011.
At the hearing, both J and M were found guilty of failing to ensure that adequate nursing records were maintained, on the basis that no risk assessment or care plan in relation to residents' falls had been kept on four occasions. J was also found guilty of failing to ensure a safe system for the administration of medicines, failing to ensure that medicine was consumed by patients after it had been dispensed and failing to report to M that medicine had been found in residents' rooms unconsumed.
Having considered the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee decided, notwithstanding the findings of misconduct outlined above, not to impose any sanctions on the registrants due to the length of time that had elapsed and its effect on the registrants, as well as their unblemished career history and positive testimonials.
Because no action was taken by the NMC in respect of their registration, the usual right of statutory appeal was not open to the registrants. However, as the registrants were nevertheless left with findings of misconduct against them, they challenged the decision by way of judicial review.
In considering the challenge, Mr Justice Leggatt rejected arguments that there were errors of law in the Committee's findings, or that their reasons were inadequate. That left him to consider whether the findings of misconduct made by the Committee were irrational and that the findings of fact which formed the foundation for the findings of misconduct were perverse.
By that time, the NMC had already conceded that the delays in the conduct of the proceedings (with eight years elapsing between the registrants being notified of the allegations, to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings) had violated their human rights to a hearing within a reasonable time contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore the delays, whilst the subject of adverse comment from the judge, do not appear to have been the subject of any detailed argument before the Court.
Mr Justice Legatt identified several occasions when the Committee had misinterpreted the evidence of both the expert witnesses and the registrants, including mistaking M's expression of regret as an admission of negligence. Accordingly Mr Justice Leggatt could not accept that the evidence adduced by the Committee could support its findings of misconduct and therefore could not see how the Committee could reasonably have found the charges against the registrants proved. The findings of misconduct against the registrants were therefore quashed.
Allegations had been brought against the registrants, the manager and deputy manager of a nursing home, by the NMC in respect of misconduct between 1998 and 2002. The registrants were first notified of the allegations by the NMC in September 2003. Following an investigation which took over two years, the registrants were notified of the charges against them three and a half years later in late April/May 2007. The NMC Professional Conduct Committee hearing of their case commenced in February 2009, and was heard over a period of 86 days, concluding in December 2011.
At the hearing, both J and M were found guilty of failing to ensure that adequate nursing records were maintained, on the basis that no risk assessment or care plan in relation to residents' falls had been kept on four occasions. J was also found guilty of failing to ensure a safe system for the administration of medicines, failing to ensure that medicine was consumed by patients after it had been dispensed and failing to report to M that medicine had been found in residents' rooms unconsumed.
Having considered the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee decided, notwithstanding the findings of misconduct outlined above, not to impose any sanctions on the registrants due to the length of time that had elapsed and its effect on the registrants, as well as their unblemished career history and positive testimonials.
Because no action was taken by the NMC in respect of their registration, the usual right of statutory appeal was not open to the registrants. However, as the registrants were nevertheless left with findings of misconduct against them, they challenged the decision by way of judicial review.
In considering the challenge, Mr Justice Leggatt rejected arguments that there were errors of law in the Committee's findings, or that their reasons were inadequate. That left him to consider whether the findings of misconduct made by the Committee were irrational and that the findings of fact which formed the foundation for the findings of misconduct were perverse.
By that time, the NMC had already conceded that the delays in the conduct of the proceedings (with eight years elapsing between the registrants being notified of the allegations, to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings) had violated their human rights to a hearing within a reasonable time contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore the delays, whilst the subject of adverse comment from the judge, do not appear to have been the subject of any detailed argument before the Court.
Mr Justice Legatt identified several occasions when the Committee had misinterpreted the evidence of both the expert witnesses and the registrants, including mistaking M's expression of regret as an admission of negligence. Accordingly Mr Justice Leggatt could not accept that the evidence adduced by the Committee could support its findings of misconduct and therefore could not see how the Committee could reasonably have found the charges against the registrants proved. The findings of misconduct against the registrants were therefore quashed.