Lavis v Nursing and Midwifery Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COBB
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ms Penny Lavis, a registered midwife, appealed a four-month suspension issued by the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC). The charges against her revolved around alleged misconduct and inadequate care during Ms A’s labor, which resulted in Ms A's baby's death. Lavis challenged several factual findings of the CCC Panel. The court allowed the appeal in part, directing a fresh panel to reconsider the issue of dishonesty while upholding other contested factual findings. This judgment reiterates principles on the evaluation of witness credibility, the burden on appellants in demonstrating error, and the standards for determining dishonesty.
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb :
Introduction
By formal Notice dated 23 June 2014, Ms Penny Lavis (hereafter the ‘Appellant’), a registered midwife, brings an appeal pursuant to Article 38(1)/(4) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against the determination by a panel of the Respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)’s Conduct and Competence Committee (‘CCC Panel’ or ‘Panel’), dated 27 May 2014. By its determination the Panel suspended the Appellant from practise for a period of 4 months.
The Appellant does not challenge the Panel’s rulings on misconduct, impairment and/or sanctions except insofar as those decisions are, or may be, affected by a successful appeal in respect of a number of factual findings of the Panel. If successful, the Appellant applies for an order which quashes the decision of the Panel in relation to five limbs of charge 1(g) (see generally [37-70] below), and requests that the case be remitted to a fresh panel to determine impairment and sanction. Alternatively, she applies to remit those aspects of charge 1(g) to a fresh panel to re-determine the facts before going on to consider impairment and sanction.
In determining this appeal, I received helpful oral and written submissions from counsel for the parties; I have read extracts from the extensive transcript of the lengthy disciplinary proceedings. I have had access to, and have read selected items from, the bundle of statements and exhibits which was prepared for the Panel hearing.
By this judgment I set out my reasons for allowing the appeal in part. In doing so, I have considered matters as follows:
1. Background §5-10 2. The Charges & Panel Decision §11-14 3. Grounds of Appeal (and amendment) §15 4. Appeal against findings of fact §16-26 5. Findings of credibility §27-36 6. Charge 1(g)(ii) §37-41 7. Charge 1(g)(iii) §42-43 8. Charge 1(g)(vi) §44-48 9. Charge 1(g)(vii) §49-52 10. Charge 1(g)(viii) §53-70 11. Conclusion §71-73 Schedule A : Chronology of relevant key events Schedule B : Charges and Panel Decision summary
Background
The Appellant has been a nurse for over 30 years; she qualified as a midwife in 1991, and is now a Band 6 registered midwife. She has (as the Panel accepted and recorded) never previously been before the CCC Panel of the NMC, nor has she been the subject of any prior allegations or complaints. At the time of the events in question she was employed by the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust (“the Trust”).
In the early hour