Amao v Nursing and Midwifery Council

Amao v Nursing and Midwifery Council

The panel's findings of fact were not vitiated by procedural mishaps or witness inconsistencies, as the evidence was overwhelming and no injustice occurred. However, the sanction of striking off was reached through a procedurally unfair process that failed to give Ms Amao a fair opportunity to address her insight into future conduct and risk of repetition. The decision on sanction cannot stand and is quashed. Suspension for one year would have been the appropriate sanction, but as Ms Amao has already served a period of suspension, no further sanction is imposed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Margaret Olapeju Amao; Defendant/respondent: Nursing and Midwifery Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Disciplinary Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to findings of fact; appeal allowed as to sanction.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Sanctions in Professional Discipline, Impairment of Fitness to Practise, Bias, Proportionality of Sanction
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Procedural Fairness Sanctions in Professional Discipline Impairment of Fitness to Practise Bias Proportionality of Sanction

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Olapeju Amao

Claimant/appellant

Nursing and Midwifery Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Disciplinary Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary panel's findings of fact were unsafe due to procedural mishaps and witness inconsistencies
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of striking off was disproportionate and procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the panel's process was vitiated by bias or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The panel's findings of fact were not vitiated by procedural mishaps or witness inconsistencies, as the evidence was overwhelming and no injustice occurred. However, the sanction of striking off was reached through a procedurally unfair process that failed to give Ms Amao a fair opportunity to address her insight into future conduct and risk of repetition. The decision on sanction cannot stand and is quashed. Suspension for one year would have been the appropriate sanction, but as Ms Amao has already served a period of suspension, no further sanction is imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to findings of fact; appeal allowed as to sanction.

Orders

  • Sanction of striking off quashed.
  • No remittal to a fresh panel.