Njie v Nursing and Midwifery Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- His Honour Judge Clive Heaton QC
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ebrima Njie, a nurse, appealed against the Nursing and Midwifery Council's decision to strike him off the register due to dishonesty. He raised multiple grounds including unfairness in admitting hearsay evidence, incorrect findings of fact, wrongful finding of dishonesty, procedural unfairness, delay, and disproportionate sanction. The court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding the panel's decision, emphasizing the relevance and fairness of evidence, proper exercise of professional judgment, and reasonableness of the sanction imposed.
Judgment
Judge Heaton:
This is an appeal by Ebrima Njie (The Appellant). The Appellant is a nurse and appeals against a decision of a panel convened by the Respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee of the 19 th April 2013. That panel made findings of fact and, based upon those findings, found that the Appellants’ fitness to practice was impaired by reason of dishonesty. The panel ordered that the Appellant’s name be struck off the register and imposed an 18 month immediate interim suspension pending any appeal.
The Appeal is brought by way of Article 29(9) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 against both findings of fact and the decision on sanction made by the panel. The Respondent resists the entire appeal.
The Appellant is unrepresented before me. The Respondent has been represented before me by Mr Neil Molony.
The relevant law as to evidence in the panel hearing
By rule 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Rules 2004 the panel hearing an allegation may upon receiving the advice of the legal assessor and subject to the requirements of relevance and fairness admit oral, documentary or other evidence whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil proceedings in England &Wales.
The key considerations for the panel are relevance and fairness. Relevant factors include the potential prejudice which might be caused to a registrant by denying him the opportunity to cross examine a witness and the potential prejudice to the regulatory body and\or the public interest if the evidence is excluded particularly where it is critical to the facts in issue ( Ogbonna-v-NMC ). [2013] EWHC 1595 (Admin)
Hearsay evidence may not be relied on as a matter of course ( R (oao Bonhoeffer)-v-GMC [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin) ). In Bonhoeffer the Court ruled that a nurse facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled in every case to test the evidence of his accusers by way of cross examaination unless good and cogent reasons can be given for the non attendance of the witness. The resolution of the fairness requirement in rule 31(1) will necessarily, it was said, be fact specific.
The legal framework for this appeal
This appeal is conducted by way of a rehearing where the court has the benefit of transcripts of evidence rather than hearing from the witnesses in person.
The Appeal is to be conducted pursuant to CPR 52 .
The approach to be taken by this Court in an appeal such as this has been determined by earlier authorit