Shackleford v Nursing and Midwifery Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC
Areas of Law
- Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) found Simon Shackleford unfit to practice as a nurse due to a conviction for assaulting his pregnant partner. Shackleford's appeal challenged the decisions on impairment and sanction. The court upheld the NMC's findings, emphasizing the importance of public confidence and the profession's reputation. The court supported the NMC's decision to strike off Shackleford from the nurse register as it considered protecting public interest and maintaining high standards in the profession.
J U D G M E N T
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JEREMY RICHARDSON QC:
1. On 5th September 2013 the Conduct and Competence Committee ("the Panel") of the Nursing and Midwifery Council ("NMC") found Simon Shackleford ("the appellant") was unfit to practise as a nurse and by reason of that made a striking off order with effect from 9th October 2013. The appellant was struck off the register of nurses. The decision was made pursuant to Article 29(5)A of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 ("the 2001 Order"). There is now an appeal to this court upon two separate grounds: the first relates to the decision of the Panel upon impairment; the second relates to the sanction imposed by the panel.
2. The circumstances of this appeal are as follows.
3. The NMC is the statutory body for the regulation of nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom. It maintains a register of all nurses and midwives. The NMC is required to establish and keep under review effective arrangements to protect the public from persons whose fitness to practise is impaired. This is set out in the 2001 Order and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 ("the 2004 Rules").
4. Article 22(1) A of the 2001 Order provides as follows:
"22(1) This Article applies where any allegation is made against a registrant to the effect that-
(a) his fitness to practise is impaired by.
(i) misconduct.
(ii) lack of competence.
(iii) a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence.
(iv) his physical or mental health, or.
(v) a determination by a body in the United Kingdom responsible under any enactment of the regulation of health or social care profession to the effect that his fitness to practise is impaired, or a determination by a licensing body elsewhere to the same effect."
In the context of this case Article 22(1) (a)(iii) is relevant.
5. The appellant is aged 45. The facts giving rise to the appellant's appearance before the Panel were these. During 2011 he was employed as a Band 5 registered nurse by Mersey Care NHS Trust. On 11th November 2011 at Chorley Magistrates' Court the appellant was convicted of assault, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 . He was sentenced to a community order comprising of an unpaid work requirement and supervision by the probation service. He was also ordered to pay £85 cost