Cynthia Njoku v Nursing and Midwifery Council

On an appeal under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, an appellate court must respect a disciplinary panel’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. That restraint does not excuse inadequate reasoning. Where allegations depend substantially on a single uncorroborated witness, the panel must assess credibility and reliability internally and against contemporaneous and objective evidence, address material inconsistencies and competing evidence, and explain why the burden of proof is satisfied. A bare conclusion that a witness is credible and consistent is insufficient where careful analysis is required. A legally unsustainable fact-finding process may make the decision wrong and require connected findings and sanction to be quashed. Remittal requires a balance between regulatory purpose, fairness, justice, finality and promptness.

Cynthia Njoku, a registered nurse, appealed under Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against findings by an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee. The Committee found that charges of offensive language, racial discrimination and bullying were proved, found misconduct and impairment, and imposed a 12-month suspension. A separate swearing charge was not proved.

The appeal challenged the factual findings rather than the sanction alone. The central issues were whether the Committee had adequately assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant, engaged with inconsistencies and contemporaneous evidence, and sufficiently explained why the core allegations were proved.

Appeal allowed. The findings on charges 1, 3 and 4 and the resulting suspension were quashed. The matter was not remitted for a rehearing.

1. Applicable appellate standard. Article 38 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, read with CPR Part 52, permits an appeal where the decision is wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The court must exercise caution before disturbing primary findings, particularly findings based on live witness evidence. That caution is not a jurisdictional bar to correcting material error or a legally unsustainable decision. The approach in R (Rice) v HPC (2011) EWHC 1649, General Medical Council v Jagjivan [2017] 1 WLR 4438, and Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 407 was applied.
2. Credibility and reliability. Because the case turned on two opposing accounts and the core allegation substantially depended on one uncorroborated witness, the panel needed to conduct a careful and thorough assessment, both internally and against external evidence. It needed to address the absence of dates, significant changes between the witness statement and oral evidence, the complainant’s own striking-off, the manner of answering questions, the absence of confirmed complaints or corroboration, the Appellant’s email and the request to change shifts. The NMC guidance required attention to consistency, contemporaneous documents, objective facts, plausibility, motive, mistake and unconscious bias. A conclusion that the complainant was credible and consistent did not demonstrate that analysis. The principles stated in Shabir v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 1772 (admin) were material.
3. Errors in the panel’s reasoning. The panel did not explain how it resolved the substantial variations in the complainant’s account, including whether the words were spoken directly to her or about her. It also failed to explain why the Appellant’s expressed frustration was relevant to proving the alleged language or why its view that the Appellant’s account was not credible assisted in assessing the complainant’s reliability. The panel’s earlier statement that it lacked sufficient information to reach safe conclusions heightened the concern. The determination therefore did not fairly explain why charge 1 was proved and was legally unsustainable. Charges 3 and 4 depended on charge 1 and had to be quashed with it.
4. Remittal. The court had discretion under Article 38(3). Allegations against healthcare professionals should generally be determined in the public interest, having regard to the interests of complainants and registrants. That had to be balanced against fairness, justice, finality, promptness, the age of the events, delay in referral and the period of suspension. In the circumstances, a fresh hearing would be unfair and the matter was not remitted.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): In [2026] EWHC 2282 (Admin) , the appeal was allowed. Findings on charges 1, 3 and 4 and the 12-month suspension were quashed. The matter was not remitted.
2. NMC Fitness to Practise Committee: The Committee found charges 1, 3 and 4 proved, charge 2 not proved, and imposed a 12-month suspension for misconduct and impairment.