Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, R (on the application of) v Nursing And Midwifery Council & Anor

Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, R (on the application of) v Nursing And Midwifery Council & Anor

The failure to properly charge and consider dishonesty was a serious procedural error. If dishonesty had been charged and found, the decision not to find misconduct would have been unduly lenient. The Committee had the power to amend the charges at any stage, and the circumstances justified remission to a differently constituted Committee with a direction to amend the charges to include dishonesty.

Parties
Claimant: Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals (now Council for Health Care Regulatory Excellence); First Defendant: Nursing and Midwifery Council; Second Defendant: Michelle Kingdom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal From Professional Conduct Committee Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Amendment of Charges, Professional Misconduct, Dishonesty in Professional Qualifications
Administrative Law Professional Regulation Health Law Procedural Fairness Amendment of Charges Professional Misconduct Dishonesty in Professional Qualifications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals (now Council for Health Care Regulatory Excellence)

Claimant

Nursing and Midwifery Council

First Defendant

Michelle Kingdom

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal From Professional Conduct Committee Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to charge dishonesty in the original proceedings was a serious procedural irregularity justifying remission
  2. 2 Whether the Committee could or should have amended the charges to include dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the decision not to find misconduct was unduly lenient

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to properly charge and consider dishonesty was a serious procedural error. If dishonesty had been charged and found, the decision not to find misconduct would have been unduly lenient. The Committee had the power to amend the charges at any stage, and the circumstances justified remission to a differently constituted Committee with a direction to amend the charges to include dishonesty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted

Orders

  • Case remitted to a differently constituted Committee with a direction to amend the charges to include an allegation of dishonesty.
  • Amended charges to be formulated and served prior to the Committee reconvening.