Patrice Vernon v Nursing and Midwifery Council

On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary decision, the High Court may allow the appeal where the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The appeal is not confined to reviewing fairness or rationality, although appropriate weight must be given to the panel’s opportunity to hear witnesses and its specialist expertise.

Dishonesty by a regulated professional does not automatically require erasure. Striking-off may nevertheless be proportionate and necessary to maintain public confidence where the dishonesty is directly connected with professional practice, creates a real public risk, is repeated or sophisticated, involves falsified professional records, and is accompanied by little insight. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a registered nurse and former student on a Specialist Community Public Health Nursing course, appealed under the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against a Fitness to Practise Committee determination. The Panel found five instances of dishonesty involving misleading placement providers and submitting falsified training records, struck her off the register and imposed an interim suspension order.

The appellant challenged the factual findings, the fairness and duration of the proceedings, and the proportionality of striking-off. The central issues were whether the Panel’s findings were wrong, whether its determination was vitiated by procedural unfairness or breach of Article 6, and whether the sanction was disproportionate. The interim suspension challenge became academic once the appeal was dismissed.

1. Statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Articles 29(9) and 38(1) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 provided the statutory right of appeal. Under CPR 52.21(3), the court should allow the appeal only if the Panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. This was an appeal rather than a mere review. The court could disagree with factual findings and substitute its own view or remit the matter, but had to allow for the Panel’s advantage in seeing witnesses and its specialist professional knowledge. The approach was drawn from Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407, General Medical Council v Jagjivan [2017] 1 WLR 4438, Sastry v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 623 and General Medical Council v Gilbert [2026] EWCA Civ 53.
2. Findings and fairness. The Panel was right to find the five instances of dishonesty proved. The evidence of three independent community practice teachers was clear, mutually corroborative and inconsistent with the appellant’s account. It established a repeated course of conduct involving misleading representations and falsified records. The Panel had not relied on findings from the University’s disciplinary process; it had made its own findings from witness evidence and contemporaneous documents. Although the delay was regrettable, it did not make a fair hearing impossible. The appellant had been able to challenge the evidence, call witnesses and participate in the hearing. The procedural unfairness and Article 6 complaints therefore had no realistic basis.
3. Sanction. A finding of professional dishonesty is serious but does not invariably require removal from the register, particularly where there is insight and little risk of repetition. That principle was drawn from Atkinson v GMC [2009] EWHC 3636 (Admin) and Hyder v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 2945 (Admin). The present misconduct was at the upper end of seriousness because it was directly related to professional practice, created a real risk to the public, was repeated and sophisticated, and involved falsified training records submitted to mislead. The reasoning in GMC v Theodoropolous [2017] EWHC 1984 (Admin) concerning public trust and the integrity of professional qualification systems applied to nurses as well as other regulated professionals. The appellant’s limited insight increased concern about recurrence. Striking-off was therefore proportionate and was not wrong.
4. Interim order. The challenge to the interim suspension order was academic after dismissal of the appeal. An earlier application to lift that order had also been refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On 28 July 2026, the statutory appeal was dismissed. The challenge to the interim suspension order was academic.
2. Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee: The Panel’s written Determination, sent on 28 May 2024, found professional misconduct involving dishonesty, ordered that the appellant be struck off the register and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order.