The NMC commenced proceedings against K, a nurse, on the basis that she had failed to state in an application form that she previously been employed in a substantive post as a staff nurse by the Queen
The NMC commenced proceedings against K, a nurse, on the basis that she had failed to state in an application form that she previously been employed in a substantive post as a staff nurse by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. It was further alleged that K had failed to make clear in the supporting statement provided with her application that she had previously been employed in a substantive post as a staff nurse, and had been dismissed from her position as a staff nurse. Finally, it was also alleged that K had made a dishonest statement during an investigatory interview conducted in her new post, following staff concerns of unacceptable performance, to the effect that she had not previously held a substantive post or had any period of preceptorship.
The Panel found all but one of the allegations against K proved, and, finding her fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of misconduct, directed that K should be struck off the nursing register. K appealed against that decision, submitting that the Panel's finding of dishonesty was wrong. She contended that, at interview, she had provided certificates showing her previous employment, and said that the finding that she had been dishonest by stating that she not previously undergone a preceptorship was unreliable. In any event, K argued that her dishonesty did not necessarily mean that she was unfit to practise or that she should be struck off the register.
Noting that the Panel had not found K to be an impressive witness, Holman J considered, in relation to the first ground, that it was certainly possible that K had deliberately and dishonestly failed to refer to her previous employment when completing her application and that only after she was interviewed realised that she would have to show the certificates. He held further that it was open to the Panel to find dishonesty based on the quality of K's evidence and the impression she made upon it. Again, in relation to the interview allegations, the Panel had been satisfied that K had undertaken a preceptorship but that it was not completed, and Holman J considered that it was entirely open to the Panel to conclude that she was dishonest in this regard.
Finally, in respect of the sanction imposed, Holman J noted that the question of which level of sanction to impose was particularly one for the discretion of the specialist panel. In this case, Holman J was unable to see anything to suggest that the Panel misdirected itself in its approach to the indicative sanctions guidance, and the ascending order in which sanctions should be dealt with. He concluded that although the actual sanction was very hard for K, it was not one that could be characterised as "excessive". Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Panel found all but one of the allegations against K proved, and, finding her fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of misconduct, directed that K should be struck off the nursing register. K appealed against that decision, submitting that the Panel's finding of dishonesty was wrong. She contended that, at interview, she had provided certificates showing her previous employment, and said that the finding that she had been dishonest by stating that she not previously undergone a preceptorship was unreliable. In any event, K argued that her dishonesty did not necessarily mean that she was unfit to practise or that she should be struck off the register.
Noting that the Panel had not found K to be an impressive witness, Holman J considered, in relation to the first ground, that it was certainly possible that K had deliberately and dishonestly failed to refer to her previous employment when completing her application and that only after she was interviewed realised that she would have to show the certificates. He held further that it was open to the Panel to find dishonesty based on the quality of K's evidence and the impression she made upon it. Again, in relation to the interview allegations, the Panel had been satisfied that K had undertaken a preceptorship but that it was not completed, and Holman J considered that it was entirely open to the Panel to conclude that she was dishonest in this regard.
Finally, in respect of the sanction imposed, Holman J noted that the question of which level of sanction to impose was particularly one for the discretion of the specialist panel. In this case, Holman J was unable to see anything to suggest that the Panel misdirected itself in its approach to the indicative sanctions guidance, and the ascending order in which sanctions should be dealt with. He concluded that although the actual sanction was very hard for K, it was not one that could be characterised as "excessive". Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.