Gbidi v Nursing And Midwifery Council

An appellate court will not interfere with a professional disciplinary tribunal’s findings where the tribunal properly considered the evidence and its conclusions were supported by sufficient evidence. Dishonesty may be established by an intentional decision to conceal relevant employment, even where the person disputes the significance of the omission or says that the form was confusing. A sanction must be assessed in the circumstances of the individual case. Comparisons with other disciplinary outcomes will rarely assist unless the relevant factual and contextual circumstances are materially comparable.

Ms Agnieszka Gbidi appealed against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Tribunal. The Tribunal found that she had failed promptly to notify a resident’s daughter after a fall and had dishonestly omitted previous employment from an application form. It imposed a three-year caution, treating the dishonesty finding as the principal reason for the sanction.

The appeal challenged principally the dishonesty finding and the sanction. The appellant also relied on the length of the proceedings, comparisons with other cases, alleged unequal treatment and her personal circumstances. The court also determined the respondent’s application for costs.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings and sanction were upheld.
2. The Tribunal had properly considered the appellant’s evidence concerning the resident’s fall, including her account that she had not seen the fall, had observed no apparent injury, had not been subject to a policy requiring notification and had acted on a colleague’s advice. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that she should have notified the resident’s daughter.
3. The dishonesty finding was also properly reached. The case was not one of forgetfulness. The Tribunal was entitled, having heard the appellant’s evidence at length, to find that she had decided to conceal her employment at Consort Care Home because disclosure might adversely affect her application. No assumption arose that failure to complete the form in the expected manner automatically constituted dishonesty.
4. The Tribunal had carefully assessed sanction and taken account of strong mitigation, including the absence of any previous similar incident. The three-year caution was exceptional in the circumstances, but the court could not fault the Tribunal’s choice of sanction. The length of the proceedings and the resulting impact on the appellant did not provide a ground for interference.
5. Examples of sanctions or decisions in other cases were distinguishable on their particular facts. The relevant question was whether the appellant’s conduct had been fairly assessed and whether the sanction was fair in its own context. The court found no unequal treatment or discrimination.
6. As the Council had succeeded, it was entitled to costs in the ordinary course. The sum sought was reduced from £4,054 to £2,000, payable within two months, with liberty to apply for further time on evidence of the appellant’s position.

The appeal was brought to the High Court (Administrative Court) from findings and sanction imposed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Tribunal. The judgment does not provide a citation for the Tribunal decision.