Mairead Siobhan Bernadette Mulholland and Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] EWHC 952 (Admin)

Posted on
This case considers the approach to be taken by a Panel when reviewing evidence.

The charges laid against the Registrant were found, in all but one instance, proven by the Panel. In making their decision, the Panel heard evidence from seven witnesses for the Regulator and also from the Registrant herself. The Registrant appealed on the basis that the Panel's decision was variously flawed, unfair, unjustified and/or not subject to proper analysis or evaluation. The Registrant argued that if the facts were not correctly found that it must follow that the finding of the Panel in relation to impairment was wrong and that the sanction (in this instance strike off) was also wrong.

Judge Roger Kaye QC held that detailed and over-sophisticated analysis or evaluation was not required. He confirmed that the decision of the Panel had to be read as a whole, and gave the opinion that the panel had reached clear conclusions and set out their succinct reasons for the decision that they had made.

This appears to suggest that a Panel is not required, as recent authorities have suggested, to give increasingly more detailed reasons for their decisions. This case also confirms that a Panel is not required to address every single facet of every piece of evidence, only those facets and pieces of evidence which prove, or fail to prove (as the case may be), the charges against the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel is entitled to accept evidence even where it is uncorroborated.