Should a Nursing Panel’s Decision be Quashed or Remitted?

Where it was agreed by the parties that a nurse’s appeal should be allowed in part because parts of the panel’s factual findings were untenable in light of the evidence before it, that the finding of impairment of fitness to practise was unjustified, and that the sanction of suspension for 12 months was unjustified, it fell to the court to determine whether the case should be remitted to a differently constituted panel for reconsideration or whether the court should quash the decision of the panel: Hannigan v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 62 (Admin)  Eyre J

The appellant did not intend to return to nursing. If the matter required further hearing she intended to apply for her voluntary removal from the Register. The respondent accepted that such a voluntary removal might ultimately be appropriate, but said that if such an application were in due course to be made, it would have to be determined by reference to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Education, Registration and Registration Appeals) Rule 2004 and having regard to the considerations set out in those rules.

Factors which were potentially relevant to the question of whether there should be remittal were set out in Hawkins v Health & Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 3256 (Admin) at [42] – [48].

Ultimately, it was a decision for the court taking into account the views of the regulator. Thus in Hendron v Bar Standards Board [2020] EWHC 1255 (Admin) at [48] Fordham J concluded that remittal was not appropriate, but that was because of the combination of a number of factors in the particular circumstances of that case.

Determining whether there should be remittal required a staged consideration. First, it was necessary to consider whether the allegations against the nurse were capable of being made out as a matter of fact. If they were not, then there would be nothing to be gained by remitting the matter to another panel which would inevitably dismiss them.  In Soni v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 364 (Admin) Holroyde J reached the conclusion that there was no utility in remittal because, even if accepted as factually correct, the evidence could not sustain a finding of dishonesty as a matter of law.

Secondly, there would have to be consideration of the distinct but closely connected questions of whether, if the allegations were made out, they could properly be found to have amounted to misconduct and whether there could properly be a finding that the nurse’s fitness to practise was impaired.

As to the agreed removal process, the rule required the Registrar to take account of the views of the maker of the allegation in question together with the public interest and the interests of the nurse. The respondent’s guidance on case management said that “agreed removal can support our aim to reach the outcome that best protects the public at the earliest opportunity.” The Registrant would also take into account the nurse’s plans for the future and, in particular, whether there was an intention to return to nursing within the next five years.

The position here was that it could not be said that remittal would have no utility. Remittal could lead to a panel properly finding the allegations made out and concluding that they amounted to misconduct impairing the nurse’s fitness to practise.

His Lordship had considerable reservations as to whether the public interest is served by a further hearing in respect of allegations as old as those here against a professional with an otherwise unblemished record and who did not intend to return to nursing.

However, the public interest was not all one way and there was considerable force in the contention that there was a strong public interest in allegations as serious as those here being properly determined and in ensuring that any resolution by way of a removal of the nurse from the Register took place after the structured consideration for which the Registration and Appeals Rules provided. The court also had particular regard to the weight to be given to the respondent’s assessment of where the public interest lay.

In light of those matters, his Lordship concluded that the public interest in the proper regulation of the nursing profession and the interests f fairness and justice in this particular case were best served by the matter being remitted for a further hearing. That hearing would not be necessary if an application for agreed removal was made and the Registrar concluded that course was appropriate.