The recent judgment of Green v NMC [2026] EWHC 69 provides a helpful reminder of the principles when considering an appeal on the facts and the care to be exercised when reliance is placed on hearsay evidence.

The appellant had been suspended for 6 months, following a finding that he did not provided appropriate care in a range of settings– this included not using an appropriate aseptic technique; performing a wound suture when not qualified; sending HCAs home when not authorised; writing an assessment letter when not authorised; performing a vaginal examination when not competent; caring for Patient C whilst under the influence of alcohol.

The latter finding, related to care provided to Patient C, whilst living at her house and also providing ‘paid care for her from Monday – Wednesday’ (paragraph 5). Patient C had needed full-time care and had died in 2021.

The appellant appealed several factual findings and the sanction. The findings challenged included those in relation to allegation 7 (caring for Patient C when under the influence) and in relation to allegation 5c (re the vaginal examination).

In respect of allegation 7 the Court observed:

• ”The evidence of what Patient C said was hearsay. In relation to the hospital notes it was multiple hearsay…”(paragraph 48)
• “It was necessary that the Panel should take care in assessing the hearsay evidence. It had to assess the evidence itself in order to consider what Patient C was in fact saying. It had to consider the circumstances in which the statements were made and it had to consider whether the things said by Patient C were potentially credible and whether there was corroboration from other evidence. There were failings in the Panel’s approach in respect of each of those elements” (paragraph 49)
• ”The Panel… failed to consider whether the account which Patient C had given in her police interview was inherently credible… Patient C said [to the police] that he had been drinking “two litres of pink gin” and had said that the Appellant would get through that volume of alcohol in “two hours”. The Panel did not consider whether that was a credible account and whether the making of an assertion in those terms cast doubt on the reliability of the balance of Patient C’s account” (paragraph 53)
• ”There are also difficulties with the material which the Panel regarded as corroborating Patient C’s account” (paragraph 54)
• ”Charge 7 was a serious allegation…it was necessary for the Panel to analyse the evidence with care. It failed to do that and treated as corroboration…matters which, on a proper analysis, were not corroborative”.

Allowing the appeal in respect of the findings made for allegation 7 (and also 5c which was conceded), the Court concluded that both “played a significant part in the determination…and the sanction cannot stand…” (para 61).

Green v NMC [2026] EWHC 69 is well worth a read whatever your tipple!