Moijueh v Nursing and Midwifery Council (Rev 1)

On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary decision, the reviewing court should give substantial weight to the specialist panel’s assessment of evidence and sanction. It may intervene for a significant procedural irregularity or error, or where the decision is wrong, including because the sanction is definitely disproportionate. Mere arguability is insufficient.

Dishonesty by a nurse is particularly serious because it may undermine public trust and may justify striking off, even where it causes no direct patient harm or concerns conduct outside professional practice. Striking off is not automatic. The panel must assess the nature, scope, duration, impact and motivation of the dishonesty, together with remorse, insight, remediation and proportionality.

Amos Moijueh, a registered mental health nurse, brought a statutory appeal against the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s decision of 20 February 2015 to strike him from the register. The panel found proved five charges, including failures in patient review, copying material into two electronic patient records, and dishonestly placing musical instruments belonging to his employer in his bag.

The appellant accepted the first three charges and challenged the sanction. He did not challenge the finding underlying the dishonesty charges, but continued to deny the conduct. The central issues were whether the panel had lawfully applied the Indicative Sanctions Guidance and whether striking off was wrong or disproportionate in the circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court found no significant procedural irregularity or error and no basis for concluding that the panel’s decision was wrong.
2. On a statutory appeal, the reviewing court must give weight to the panel’s reasoning because the panel heard the oral evidence and is the specialist professional body with experience in disciplinary sanction. The court may intervene where a sanction is definitely disproportionate, but it must not interfere merely because the decision is arguably wrong.
3. The panel properly considered the available sanctions in ascending order of gravity and applied the Indicative Sanctions Guidance. The admitted record-keeping and review failings could potentially have been addressed by conditions of practice. The dishonesty finding was materially different because it raised wider issues of ethics, accountability, judgment, insight and trust.
4. Dishonesty is particularly serious even where it causes no direct patient harm and concerns conduct outside professional practice. It creates a severe risk of erasure because honesty, integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to public confidence in the profession. The outcome remains fact-sensitive and is not automatic. The panel must consider proportionality and relevant circumstances, including the nature, scope, extent, duration, repetition, effect on others, personal gain, attitude, remorse, insight and prospects of remediation.
5. The panel was entitled to take account of the appellant’s sustained denial after the dishonesty finding. That denial prevented a more merciful assessment based on insight or remorse. The low value of the instruments, previous good record and subsequent positive employment did not make the sanction definitely disproportionate, particularly since the items belonged to the employer and the dishonesty occurred in the course of employment.
6. The appellant was ordered to pay the Council’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, summarily assessed at £2,452.

• High Court (Administrative Court): statutory appeal dismissed. The Nursing and Midwifery Council’s striking-off decision was upheld, and costs were summarily assessed at £2,452.
• Nursing and Midwifery Council: on 20 February 2015, the panel found all five charges proved, determined that fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a striking-off order.