High Court overturns NMC panel decision and orders erasure in PSA v NMC & Tchampet

The High Court has quashed a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Fitness to Practise Committee decision and ordered the immediate erasure of the respondent nurse from the register, ruling that a nine‑month suspension was “wrong” and insufficient to protect the public.

In PSA v (1) NMC (2) Tchampet [2026] EWHC 141 (Admin), Mr Justice Griffiths delivered the judgment on 30 January 2026, following a statutory appeal brought by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) under section 29 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The PSA argued that the NMC panel’s sanction was unduly lenient given the seriousness of the misconduct, the risk to a highly vulnerable child, and the registrant’s previous history.

A serious pattern of misconduct

The case centred on events during a night shift on 17–18 December 2019, when the respondent nurse was providing one‑to‑one care to a 10‑year‑old quadriplegic child (“Child A”) who required continuous ventilation via tracheostomy and was at risk of fatal complications if not closely monitored.

The NMC panel found that the respondent nurse:

• covered the CCTV camera in the child’s room with a cloth
• slept for nearly four hours across two prolonged periods
• failed to carry out required hourly observations
• falsified clinical records to suggest she had completed checks
• used the same cloth that covered the camera to wash the child, breaching infection control
• repeatedly lied to her employer during the subsequent investigation

All charges were admitted at the 2025 hearing.

The panel also had before it the respondent nurse’s previous regulatory history: a 2017 written warning for sleeping on duty and producing an inaccurate treatment protocol for another vulnerable child. In that earlier case, she had assured the NMC she would not work in community settings again—an assurance she later broke.

The NMC panel’s decision: suspension, not erasure

Despite finding serious misconduct and impairment on public interest grounds, the NMC panel imposed a nine‑month suspension. It relied heavily on:

• the respondent nurse’s expressions of insight
• positive testimonials from colleagues
• her unblemished work record since 2019
• her stated intention to work only in hospital settings

The panel concluded that striking off would be disproportionate and that her misconduct was not fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.

PSA appeal: sanction was insufficient to protect the public

The PSA appealed on three grounds:

1. the sanction was too lenient given the gravity of the misconduct
2. the panel made material errors, including characterising the dishonesty as a single episode
3. the panel failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting erasure

The NMC itself supported the PSA on Grounds 1 and 3, and partially on Ground 2.

High Court judgment: panel was “wrong”

Mr Justice Griffiths held that the panel’s reasoning was incomplete and unsound and that erasure was the only sanction compatible with the NMC’s own Sanctions Guidance and the facts.

Key findings included:

• Risk to life: Child A was exceptionally vulnerable; sleeping on duty created a potentially fatal risk.
• Deliberate concealment: Covering the camera and falsifying records constituted serious, multi‑layered dishonesty.
• Sustained deception: The respondent nurse lied for six weeks during the employer’s investigation.
• Not a one‑off incident: The misconduct mirrored her earlier case, demonstrating a pattern and an attitudinal problem.
• Broken assurances: Her 2017 promise not to work in community settings had already proved unreliable.
• Guidance pointed clearly to erasure: The NMC’s Sanctions Guidance treats dishonesty, neglect of vulnerable patients, and breach of candour as behaviours that typically warrant removal.

The judge concluded:

“The only possible decision… was that [the respondent nurse] should have been struck off.”

He substituted the sanction of erasure rather than remitting the case.

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.