This week Paul Golden attended the High Court to appeal his Strike Off order by the Nursing and. Midwifery Council in April last year. Paul a midwife and nurse of over 40years, was subject to interim order hearings, reviews and high court extension application ( again through the High Court ) At the extension hearing he succeeded in gaining some useful comments back from Judge Philip Mott who stated

“I have been sitting in this job long enough to see innumerable additional requests by the NMC to ask for extra time.  It happens far too often in my view … there’s major interference with someone’s life and I would expect a decision to be made certainly within the next six months or earlier.“

Justice Ritchie scrutinised fairly, not only the appeal itself and its merits but also the NMC in their decision making and conduct of the substantive brought up some key issues. 

This appeal highlighted that the NMC needs higher levels of transparency and fairness when it comes to evidence and to be accountable when they are not. Mr Cassells, for the NMC, admitted during submissions that NMC chose not to submit key evidence to the panel until a decision at both the fact finding and misconduct stages of the hearing had been reached. The evidence was submitted prior to them considering sanctioning. Justice Ritchie spent considerable time examining this and expressed his concern. Thorneycroft V NMC (2014) was reviewed in regards to many aspects but predominantly that the panel is expected to act as both “arbiter of both fact and law and as such it is not appropriate for questions as to the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be taken by Legal Assessors or Case Presenters on their behalf. “ Justice Ritchie questioned stated it was puzzling why the NMC chose to not  put ALL evidence in front of the panel for them to them decide upon. He expressed concern on poor governance around statement gathering by both Mr Golden but equally by the NMC. In relation to one NMC statement submitted, saying he would expect a regulator to lead by example and ensure it was gathered more expertly, paying attention to date, time stamps as well as signature to verify its provenance – all of which were missing. 

Mr Golden explained the impact of such a long process as a litigant in person. He was extremely frustrated and had difficulty navigating process with no fixed abode or funds. Stress associated with trying to present his case when he was not given responses to key questions, and being ignored by the NMC. Justice Ritchie summed this up eloquently, evoking some of us to tears, “When you are suspended and at your most vulnerable” This showed more compassion and humanity to the registrant than the NMC had done in 3 years preceding and whether the verdict falls in favour or not of the registrant now, really is not important. What matters is the registrant was heard, was given time, shown compassion and was listened to – priceless. Such a shame it takes to come to appeal to achieve this.