In Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor [2025] EWHC 1215, the case arose after the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee suspended the registration of a nurse for 12 months following findings that he had engaged in repeated acts of sexually motivated harassment towards two colleagues during his employment at a nursing home.

The misconduct—which included unwelcome physical contact, inappropriate sexual advances, and manipulative behaviour over several night shifts between April and July 2020—was found to have severely compromised professional standards and created a hostile work environment.

The Professional Standards Authority, appealing the panel’s decision under section 29(4) of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, argued that the panel had failed to address adequately the seriousness of the misconduct, namely the deep-seated attitudinal issues, lack of remorse, and the risk of recurrence, thereby imposing too lenient a sanction that did not sufficiently protect the public or uphold professional confidence.

During the appeal, the nurse sought to introduce updated evidence—comprising a revised witness statement, testimonials, and records of further training—to demonstrate remorse and improved insight; however, the Court, determined that this new evidence should not be admitted because it was available at the initial hearing and its credibility could not be properly tested via cross-examination.

UK Fitness to Practise News

Ultimately, Mrs Justice Lang allowed the appeal on Grounds 1, 2 and 3, saying, in summary:

“I accept the Authority’s submission that the Panel was required to consider aggravating features at the sanction stage, in accordance with the Sanctions Guidance. A panel does not discharge its functions lawfully if it overlooks an aggravating feature at the sanction stage, even if it did take that feature into account when determining the different questions of misconduct or impairment.”

She continued:

“I agree with the Authority’s submission that it appears that the Panel in this case engaged in similar “unsupported wishful thinking” in relation to the Registrant.

“For these reasons, I consider that the Panel’s decision was wrong in that it failed to apply the Sanctions Guidance correctly (Ground 2) and failed to give adequate reasons, which was a serious procedural irregularity (Ground 3).”

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.

Insight Works Training

Restoration Courses

Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.

Book Now
Insight Works Training

Insight & Remediation

Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.

Book Now
Insight Works Training

Probity, Ethics & Professionalism

Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.

Book Now