Andrei Christian Juchi v The Nursing and Midwifery Council

A disciplinary panel which has announced its findings of fact has no general Ladd v Marshall jurisdiction to reopen the completed fact-finding stage to receive new evidence on matters that were in dispute. A tribunal may correct an accidental slip. Any exceptional corrective jurisdiction is confined to matters going in effect to jurisdiction, such as a subsequently quashed conviction or fraud, and does not extend to ordinary challenges to the evaluation of evidence.

On appeal, the High Court exercises a primary judgment on whether findings were wrong but gives substantial respect to specialist disciplinary judgment and case management decisions. Erasure will rarely be disturbed where the misconduct involves abuse of a professional position of trust with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant, a registered nurse, appealed under article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against a Fitness to Practise Committee decision finding misconduct and imposing a striking-off order.

The misconduct included contacting a patient through Facebook, engaging in a sexual relationship with her while she was his patient, and recording sexual intercourse without her consent. The appellant challenged the refusal to admit further social-media evidence during the hearing and after the fact-finding decision had been announced. He also challenged the Panel’s case-management decisions, reasoning and sanction.

The central issue was whether the Panel had power to reopen completed fact-finding proceedings to admit new evidence concerning who initiated Facebook contact.

1. Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s powers under article 38(3) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 and CPR rule 52.21 permit a review, and in appropriate cases a primary judgment on factual findings, but the Court will not interfere unless the decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural irregularity. It gives particular respect to professional judgment, case management and sanction decisions by the specialist tribunal.
2. The Panel had no general power, after announcing its findings of fact, to reopen that stage and admit new evidence on matters that had been contested. The Ladd v Marshall criteria govern new evidence on appeal, subject to CPR rule 52.21 and the overriding objective. They do not create a corresponding jurisdiction in a disciplinary panel once its fact-finding task is complete.
3. A tribunal may correct an accidental slip which does not substantially affect the parties’ rights or the decision. The authorities also leave open a narrow exceptional jurisdiction where a supervening matter effectively destroys the basis or jurisdiction of the decision, such as a conviction founding the disciplinary case being quashed, or fraud. That possible jurisdiction does not extend to ordinary new evidence bearing on credibility or disputed facts.
4. The Facebook recording could have been obtained earlier, was not shown to be central to the charge, and did not establish a fundamental mistake. The allegation concerned the fact of contact, not who initiated it. The Panel’s refusal to admit further social-media material during the hearing was also a lawful case-management decision.
5. The sanction challenge failed. The appellant admitted a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient during the professional relationship. In light of the abuse of trust, vulnerability, public protection and confidence in the profession, erasure was not outside the range of reasonable sanctions.

This was an appeal to the High Court under article 38(1) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 from a Fitness to Practise Committee decision dated 3 January 2024. The appeal was dismissed.