All ER (D) 259 (Oct)The appellant nurse (G) appealed against a decision by the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council which had found G guilty of professional misconduct
All ER (D) 259 (Oct)
The appellant nurse (G) appealed against a decision by the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council which had found G guilty of professional misconduct and concluded that her fitness to practise was impaired. The basis of the appeal was the Committee's decision not to adjourn proceedings.
G was absent during the disciplinary hearing due to ill health but a lay representative appeared on her behalf. An adjournment was requested by G's representative on the basis of a letter from G's doctor. The Committee heard that G was suffering from depression and anxiety and her ability to give coherent answers in cross examination would be affected. However, the Committee considered that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that G lacked capacity and there was nothing to be gained by an adjournment.
The circumstances were not ideal as G's representative had only received the 277 page bundle the day before the hearing; yet the Committee was satisfied that G's representative had instructions from G and that they were able to proceed with the hearing without there being any injustice. It was decided that G understood the procedure and there was no unfairness. They decided not to adjourn the proceedings.
G argued that the Committee should have adjourned the hearing based on her medical condition and because her representative had not had sufficient time to prepare.
The Court was of the view that the Committee had the discretion to consider whether to grant an adjournment and was required to make a value judgement based on the evidence presented. It was held that the Committee could not be criticised for its decision in refusing the appellant's application for an adjournment or for failing to allow more time for her and her lay representative to prepare.
According to the Committee's assessment G was a vulnerable person based on her mental illness but was considered to be fit to provide instructions and be properly represented. The onus was placed on G to demonstrate that the Committee had erred in not allowing her representative more time to prepare. The Court found that G's representative was given a number of opportunities by the Committee and the legal assessor to apply for an adjournment and state that he needed more time to prepare which he had not taken. The application for adjournment at the Committee hearing had only been made in respect of G's health and ability to give evidence. Overall, the fact that G was represented at the hearing and was able to provide instructions to her representative meant that the decision was not unfair.
The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant nurse (G) appealed against a decision by the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council which had found G guilty of professional misconduct and concluded that her fitness to practise was impaired. The basis of the appeal was the Committee's decision not to adjourn proceedings.
G was absent during the disciplinary hearing due to ill health but a lay representative appeared on her behalf. An adjournment was requested by G's representative on the basis of a letter from G's doctor. The Committee heard that G was suffering from depression and anxiety and her ability to give coherent answers in cross examination would be affected. However, the Committee considered that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that G lacked capacity and there was nothing to be gained by an adjournment.
The circumstances were not ideal as G's representative had only received the 277 page bundle the day before the hearing; yet the Committee was satisfied that G's representative had instructions from G and that they were able to proceed with the hearing without there being any injustice. It was decided that G understood the procedure and there was no unfairness. They decided not to adjourn the proceedings.
G argued that the Committee should have adjourned the hearing based on her medical condition and because her representative had not had sufficient time to prepare.
The Court was of the view that the Committee had the discretion to consider whether to grant an adjournment and was required to make a value judgement based on the evidence presented. It was held that the Committee could not be criticised for its decision in refusing the appellant's application for an adjournment or for failing to allow more time for her and her lay representative to prepare.
According to the Committee's assessment G was a vulnerable person based on her mental illness but was considered to be fit to provide instructions and be properly represented. The onus was placed on G to demonstrate that the Committee had erred in not allowing her representative more time to prepare. The Court found that G's representative was given a number of opportunities by the Committee and the legal assessor to apply for an adjournment and state that he needed more time to prepare which he had not taken. The application for adjournment at the Committee hearing had only been made in respect of G's health and ability to give evidence. Overall, the fact that G was represented at the hearing and was able to provide instructions to her representative meant that the decision was not unfair.
The appeal was dismissed.