High court dismisses appeal against NMC’s refusal to reinstate nurse struck off for dishonesty

In Jerry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 2814 (Admin), the High Court dismissed the appellant nurse’s appeal against the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s refusal to restore her to the nursing register. The appellant nurse had been struck off in 2015 following findings of serious misconduct and dishonesty during a night shift in 2011 at Royal Surrey Hospital.

The original Conduct and Competence Committee found she had falsified a patient’s oxygen saturation reading and failed to document or explain her actions. Although the patient’s death was unrelated, the committee concluded that her conduct was dishonest and that she lacked insight or remorse. Her appeal to the High Court in 2016 was dismissed, and her application to the Court of Appeal was refused as totally without merit.

In January 2025, the appellant nurse applied for restoration under Article 33 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The Fitness to Practise Committee refused the application, citing her continued lack of insight, absence of remorse, inadequate evidence of strengthened practice, and incomplete employment history.

She appealed the decision, arguing that the committee had failed to consider new evidence and had relied on flawed findings from the original decision. Mr Justice MacDonald rejected all ten grounds of appeal, holding that the committee was not required to revisit the original findings, which remained valid and unchallenged. He found that the appellant nurse’s claims of new exonerating evidence were unsupported and not properly submitted under the relevant procedural rules.

The court concluded that the committee’s decision was reasonable and procedurally sound. It was entitled to assess her current fitness to practise and had properly determined that she lacked insight, had not addressed the dishonesty, and posed a risk to public confidence.

Her training and employment history did not demonstrate remediation or readiness to return to practice. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The judgment reinforces that restoration is a forward-looking assessment of current suitability to rejoin the profession, not an opportunity to re-litigate past findings.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.