Background
Stacey Jessica Nurrish was suspended for 12 months in February 2024 after admitting nine misconduct charges, including several dishonest acts. These involved working for one NHS trust while on sick leave from another, failing to attend to a patient, poor record‑keeping, and falsely claiming to have taken a Covid‑19 test. The original panel accepted that the misconduct occurred while she was in an abusive and coercive relationship and noted her remorse, insight, and steps to remove herself from that environment. It imposed a suspension rather than striking her off. At a review hearing in January 2025, however, the panel concluded that Nurrish had been dishonest in her oral evidence about two positive testimonials she had submitted. It found her fitness to practise remained impaired and imposed a striking‑off order.Grounds of Appeal
Nurrish appealed on two principal grounds:- The panel was wrong to find she had been dishonest during the review hearing.
- The striking‑off order was unjust because it depended entirely on that flawed finding.
Mr Justice Eyre accepted that appellate courts must show deference to panels’ factual findings, particularly on honesty. However, he held that the panel’s conclusion could not stand.
He identified several serious problems:
- The virtual format reduced the panel’s advantage in assessing demeanour.
- The panel asked 44 questions in 22 minutes, often returning to topics after appearing satisfied, creating confusion.
- Nurrish was never told that her honesty was doubted or invited to address that concern.
- The legal adviser failed to give guidance on the test for dishonesty or caution the panel about relying on demeanour.
- The evidential basis for dishonesty was weak, resting on inferences rather than clear contradictions.
- It was inherently unlikely that Nurrish would deliberately lie using references she herself had provided.
These amounted to both procedural unfairness and a substantively unsafe conclusion.
The High Court held that the finding of dishonesty must be quashed, along with the resulting finding of impairment and the striking‑off order. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted NMC panel to reconsider impairment and sanction
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.
Restoration Courses
Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.
Insight & Remediation
Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.
Probity, Ethics & Professionalism
Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.
Recent Comments