Bernadette Jerry v The Nursing and Midwifery Council

An appeal against refusal to restore a person to a professional register concerns whether the restoration decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. It is not a rehearing of the original disciplinary proceedings. Previous findings remain operative unless reopened through the proper procedure.

Under Article 33 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, completion of training or requisite hours is relevant but not determinative. The committee must assess whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, having regard to the original misconduct. Where dishonesty was previously found, the committee may consider the applicant’s insight, responsibility, remorse, remediation and understanding of the impact of the conduct.

Bernadette Jerry appealed under Article 33(12) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against the Fitness to Practise Committee’s refusal in January 2025 to restore her to the nursing register. She had been struck off in 2015 following findings of serious misconduct and dishonesty. Her earlier appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2016, and permission to appeal was later refused.

She sought to challenge the original findings, alleged failures by the Nursing and Midwifery Council to provide evidence, relied on asserted fresh evidence, and argued that her training and learning entitled her to restoration. The central issues were the proper scope of the restoration application and appeal, and whether the Committee’s assessment of insight, remediation and fitness was legally flawed.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 and CPR r 52.21(3), the High Court could intervene only if the Committee’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The restoration process was not a review or rehearing of the 2015 disciplinary proceedings. The findings and striking-off decision stood following the earlier unsuccessful appeal. Any attempt to reopen that appeal and adduce fresh evidence required an application under CPR r 52.30. Neither the Committee nor this court was required to revalidate the original findings.
3. The Committee’s task was to decide whether the requirements of Article 33 had been met. The overarching objective under Article 3 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 included protection of the public, maintenance of public confidence and proper professional standards. The applicant had to be a fit and proper person, having regard particularly to the circumstances leading to the striking-off order.
4. Completion of the necessary hours and relevant training was only a factor in the restoration assessment. The Committee was entitled to find that training unrelated to the proven misconduct and dishonesty did not demonstrate strengthened practice.
5. The Committee was entitled to assess insight and remediation by reference to the established dishonesty. It could consider whether the applicant acknowledged the finding, understood the effect on patients and colleagues, identified the triggers and motivation for the conduct, undertook specific remedial steps, and linked reflection to improved understanding and conduct. The absence of meaningful insight and evidence of strengthened practice justified the conclusion that restoration was not appropriate.

The decision was neither wrong nor unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. Costs were to be addressed by short written submissions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against refusal of restoration was dismissed.
• High Court: the earlier appeal against the 2015 striking-off decision was dismissed in Jerry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 681 (Admin).
• Court of Appeal: permission to appeal the 2016 decision was refused as totally without merit.