We have had a number of examples over the same amount of weeks where panels have breached their duty as a neutral party to examine the evidence in front of them and navigate gaps in the investigation to determine the right outcome.

1. Chair overheard during "In camera" session by the legal assessor saying that they did not want certain evidence accepted as it would benefit the registrant's case! This chair was then asked to recuse themself which they initially refused but then did so. A new chair has been appointed but with extremely poor transcripts - see previous update about issues with MS Teams transcription - we worry as to how this chair will be fully. briefed
2. Witness for the registrant confirmed registrant's testimony that allegations simply did not happen ( as do 2 others ) - panel do not step in when case presenter spends over an hour trying to get registrant to say she lied!
3. Witness for the registrant testifies she has evidence which she can provide that will support the registrant's case - panel refused to allow it stating they had all the evidence they need. 
4. Panel asked to request evidence known to be available from referring trust but not obtained by NMC. Refused as said no need and yet this evidence would support the registrant's case

There have been many high court judges who have made comment about how panels have an important job in ensuring they remain neutral during a case. Thorneycroft (2014) demonstrated this when the judge helped to clarify the position and that  it will be necessary for a Panel to ensure they are  the 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 Care Presenters on their behalf.