It’s a question of bias

I’ve had an interesting few weeks since I last had time to write on my blog.

A couple of nurse clients have received no case to answer outcomes at Case Examiner stage in that time, and a psychologist received a no case to answer outcome at the very first stage, the screening stage. I’m always pleased when my clients have the yoke of fitness to practice proceedings lifted from their necks without even having to go to a hearing.

One of the nursing clients in particular had been through an onerous process, with their referral coming out of an inquest, where the coroner had criticised them and referred them to the NMC. Despite the weighty source of the referral, we were still able to successfully defend and dispose of the referral.

Sometimes my cases do go to hearings though, and in the last couple of weeks, I have had two four day hearings, one at the NMC and one at the HCPC. They had very different outcomes.

The NMC case, involving a dishonesty allegation, resulted in a no case to answer decision, and a lengthy testimonial from my very pleased client! A largely successful submission of no case to answer before my client gave evidence meant that only one of four charges were left to deal with at the end of the NMC evidence. Strong evidence from my client and their supporting witnesses meant that the remaining charge could not be proved, and my client left the hearing feeling like they had lived, in her own words “the best day of [their] professional life”!

The HCPC case was very unusually halted because one of the panel members decided to carry out their own investigation into the evidence on the internet, whilst they were hearing evidence in the case. You may have heard of this sort of things in criminal trials, where a serving juror does their own research in the middle of a trial. This usually result in that juror getting a severe slap on the wrist (at a minimum), with the trial on many occasions having to be abandoned and run again with a fresh jury. Well, the equivalent happened in my case. Even though my client wanted to carry on, as did the panel before hearing our submissions, the serious procedural irregularity by the panel member meant the hearing could not go on fairly with the same panel. Such actions by a panel member mean there is a potential perception of bias, you see. The case will be relisted and heard in front of a new panel in due course.

Next week I have a readmission appeal hearing, a fascinating case. I’ll tell you all about it afterwards!