Summary
On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary decision, the court conducts a review rather than a rehearing. It must show appropriate deference to evaluative findings and sanction decisions, but may intervene where the decision is materially wrong or procedurally unjust.
Dishonesty involving vulnerable patients, falsified clinical records, concealment, and repetition after an earlier warning may make a lesser sanction plainly inadequate. Remediation, insight, favourable references and an otherwise satisfactory work record must be assessed against the nature of the misconduct and the reliability of earlier assurances. Where the panel’s reasoning is incomplete and unsound, the court may quash the decision and substitute the sanction that the statutory scheme permits.
Factual background
The Professional Standards Authority appealed against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee concerning Marina Tchampet, a registered nurse.
The Committee found proved that Ms Tchampet had slept while solely responsible for a vulnerable, ventilated child, failed to carry out required observations, falsified records, breached infection-control requirements and dishonestly maintained a false account during the employer’s investigation. It found current impairment on public-interest grounds but imposed a nine-month suspension rather than striking her off.
The appeal challenged the sanction, four alleged material errors and the adequacy of the Committee’s reasons. The central issue was whether suspension was a sufficient and proportionate response in light of the seriousness, dishonesty, vulnerability of the patient and Ms Tchampet’s earlier warning for similar misconduct.
Held
Appeal allowed. The Committee’s decision was quashed. The court substituted a striking-off order.
Under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, read with CPR rule 52.21(3), the court may intervene where the disciplinary decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The appeal is a review, not a rehearing or redetermination. Appropriate respect must be given to the professional tribunal’s expertise, particularly on evaluative questions and credibility.
The Committee’s sanction reasoning was incomplete and unsound. It gave insufficient weight to the fact that Ms Tchampet had deliberately enabled herself to sleep while solely responsible for a child exposed to potentially fatal risks, failed to monitor him, falsified records, breached infection control and maintained dishonest explanations for about six weeks.
The Committee wrongly treated the misconduct as a single instance and the dishonesty as a single episode below the higher end of seriousness. The misconduct involved multiple acts and continued over a substantial period. It followed an earlier warning for similar sleeping and record-keeping failures, despite an assurance that Ms Tchampet would not return to community work. That repetition and escalation undermined the Committee’s conclusion that there was only a minimal risk of repetition.
Under the NMC sanctions guidance, dishonesty involving deliberate concealment, falsified records, vulnerable patients and direct risk to patients is particularly serious. The guidance concerning neglect of children or vulnerable people and serious concerns that are difficult to remediate also pointed strongly towards striking off. Insight, training, testimonials and an unblemished period after the misconduct were relevant, but insufficient to justify suspension on these facts.
Given the Committee’s primary factual findings and the guidance, striking off was the only possible lawful sanction. The court therefore exercised its power to substitute that decision.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Authority’s appeal against the Fitness to Practise Committee decision dated 4 April 2025, quashed the decision and substituted a striking-off order.
Key cases cited
16 authorities cited.
- Habib Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council [2016] UKSC 64
- Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1879
- Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407
- Fatnani & Anor v General Medical Council [2007] EWCA Civ 46
- Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) & Ors Rev 1 [2006] EWCA Civ 390
- Ruscillo v Council for the Regulation of Health Care Profesionals& Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1356
- Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group (Practice Note) [2002] EWCA Civ 1642
- Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)
- PSA and GOC v Rose [2021] EWHC 2888 (Admin)
- Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council (Roberts) [2020] EWHC 1906 (Admin)
- Professional Standards Authority v GMC and Hilton [2019] EWHC 1630 (Admin)
- Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin)
- Yeong v The General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1923 (Admin)
- Zygmunt, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 2643 (Admin)
- Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin)
- Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor [2005] EWHC 579 (Admin)
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
Available to signed-in members.