Some of our members were shocked to hear at a hearing this week of the NMC's pursuit of a witness despite obvious evidence shown by the witness that they no longer wanted to engage in the process. 

It was shown that one witness had been contacted by phone by the NMC teams 8 times by phone call messaging and another 9 times by email. The witness did not respond.

The NMC then applied for a court summons which was agreed by the court and still the witness refused to engage.

The panel considered this and the lawyer for the registrant opposed submitting the written evidence which had been obtained nearly three years previously. The NMC stated if the evidence was not allowed it would be detrimental to their case. The panel allowed the evidence as otherwise it may be seen as being unfair to the NMC.

As lay observers in the public gallery this seemed abhorrently unfair to the registrant. The witness clearly did not want to be part of proceedings - did she no longer stand by her statement? Had the original statement been written under duress? Had the original statement been written in full by her or transcribed after a telephone call? All of these questions could not be answered and yet still it was submitted.

Yes it is up to the panel, as an independant and professional panel to determine what weight should be put on such evidence. But surely as the "arbiter of the law" as highlighted by one High Court Judge at appeal they need to stand up for the registrant at such times.

Justice Spencer at the registrants appeal previously stated“As a matter of common sense and common fairness, the panel were obliged to proceed with greater caution