Brown v Nursing and Midwifery Council (2026): Fitness to Practise and High Court Review

In Brown v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 250 (Admin) (12 February 2026), the appellant nurse, registered since 1999, worked as a Band 5 bank nurse for HCA Healthcare. Concerns arising in 2021 about medication handling led to an internal investigation, dismissal on 19 November 2021, an NMC referral and an interim conditions on practice order in October 2021 (revoked September 2023). The Fitness to Practise Panel heard the matter between 21 July and 1 August 2025 and issued its written decision on 5 August 2025.

Charges and factual findings

The Panel considered six core charges including failures to administer or monitor medication on specified dates, documenting administration that had not occurred, preparing an IV drip with an unknown substance, multiple instances (31 entries in Schedule A) of removing medication in excess of prescribed amounts as recorded on the Omnicell system, dishonesty in recording removals as for patient administration when they were not, and theft of medication. The Panel accepted Omnicell system reports and witness evidence, found charges 1–3 admitted and proved, and found charges 4–6 proved after assessing the Omnicell data, patient records and witness testimony.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant advanced five principal grounds: (1) procedural unfairness and failure to disclose material evidence (Datix/discrepancy reports); (2) irrational and unsupported factual findings in relation to Schedule A incidents; (3) improper reversal of the burden of proof; (4) failure to consider alternative explanations and public interest; and (5) an alleged false statement by the NMC about witness evidence. The appellant relied on newly obtained employer correspondence and argued that undisclosed discrepancy reports would have shown resolution of alleged excess removals.

High Court analysis

The High Court applied the rehearing standard: allow the appeal only if the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity. The judge reviewed the Omnicell evidence, witness statements and the Panel’s reasoning about the absence of contemporaneous discrepancy reports, and concluded the Panel had not been deprived of relevant documentary evidence and had not acted unfairly in refusing an adjournment. The court found that the Omnicell reports and patient records supported the Panel’s factual findings and that the additional email evidence obtained after the Panel decision would not have altered the outcome.

Decision on dishonesty, impairment and sanction

The court upheld the Panel’s application of the legal test for dishonesty (Ivey), its finding that the appellant had recorded medication removals as for patient administration when that was not the case, and its conclusion that the conduct amounted to theft. The Panel’s findings of misconduct and current impairment (public protection and public confidence) were held to be within the bounds of reasonable evaluative judgment. The Panel’s conclusion that conditions or suspension would not adequately protect the public and that a striking‑off order was the only proportionate sanction was upheld.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. Directions were given for the parties to address costs.

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.