The recent judgment of PSA v NMC and another [2026] EWHC 637 (Admin) provides a reminder of the approach that should be taken by a panel in respect of a half time submission.

The FTP Panel had concluded there was ‘no impairment’ (14) having considered multiple allegations relating to sexual acts with a colleague without consent and without a reasonable belief of consent.

The registrant’s position was that there had been sexual intercourse on two of the dates but that it had been consensual(8).

The Panel heard evidence from Person A in support of allegations.

The NMC applied to admit hearsay evidence (a ‘forensic expert report’ and a police witness statement from Person B). Both applications were refused on the grounds of fairness (9).

A half time submission was made at the close of the NMC case. The ‘upshot’ being that because of the Panel’s view of Person A’s evidence, it concluded that there was ‘no case to answer’ in respect of a number of the alleged ‘non-consensual’ aspects(12). In respect of one date, the issue of consent remained(12).

Having heard evidence from the Registrant, the Panel held:

• ‘[T]he only conduct found (or admitted) was…consensual, [and] the NMC felt able only to make a positive case on misconduct in relation to Count 1b (sexual intercourse in a hospital disabled toilet during the working day)’.
• “[Matters] relating to acts between consenting adults in private accommodation, did not amount to misconduct…[but]1b did amount to misconduct”.
• Impairment was not found(14)

The PSA appealed on the basis that the decision had been wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularities including (1) ‘under prosecution’ – not securing material evidence (2) An error in the approach to the half time submission.

In upholding Ground 1, the Court stated:

• ‘…the failure…to secure the attendance of the two witnesses was…a procedural irregularity…The evidence…was capable of providing support for Person A’s account…’ (par26) In upholding Ground 2, the Court concluded that there had been multiple errors including:
• All. 2b: ‘[the Panel] failed to consider that, if Person A had not consented, as to which it held there was a case to answer, that might itself be evidence that the Registrant could not have had a reasonable belief in her consenting, because her absence of consent could be expected to have been apparent…’ (32)