The judgment in Davies v NMC (13/05/26) highlights the difficulties that a panel can find itself in, when it fails to direct its ‘evidentiary and fact-finding function’ correctly – and the potentially devastating impact that this can have on a registrant.

The nurse appealed the decision on facts which had been made in November 2025.

The concerns dated back to 2021 and related to the alleged conduct towards a patient whilst ‘in a condition of high dependency…paralysed and non-verbal …’ [3]

The patient alleged that the Appellant had mistreated him and deliberately subjected him to pain and humiliation (5).

Having heard evidence from the patient, his wife, members of staff and the Appellant himself, the Panel found the allegations (which were denied) proved (6). Findings of misconduct and impairment followed and a striking off order was made.

The appeal involved challenges both to the Panel’s finding of fact as well as the inferences it had drawn and the sufficiency of reasoning (21).
Particular concern was raised that the panel had regarded ‘its fact-finding function as a choice between the credibility of the Patient and of himself’ and had ‘failed to deal properly and transparently (including in its reasoning) with the issues’[23]

The Court observed:

• ‘Disciplinary panels have a difficult job to do… They are not courts of law… the burden and standard of proof applicable to its proceedings mean that professionals are entitled to the benefit of any proper doubt about what objectively, weighing and balancing all the evidence, more likely than not happened.[138]
• ‘There was…the combination of Mr Davies’s long, unblemished record, the…‘good character’ direction and the objective improbability of such motives and intentions’ [139]
• ‘[there] was the near total lack of corroborative evidence cited… potentially material inconsistencies…the warning signs of exaggeration, improvisation and animus in the Patient’s evidence…’[139]
• The written decision does not demonstrate in its reasoning that the Panel had fully grappled with…the principal reasons to doubt which plainly appeared from the materials before it’ [140].
• ‘There are…too many signs of an insufficiently secure grasp and application of the burden and standard of proof and of a fair and transparent approach to assessing evidence…’ [141]

The Court concluded:

• Some of these features are capable of being regarded as errors of law or misdirection in their own right. But it is their cumulative effect which persuades me, on balance…that its decision cannot…stand’ [142]
• ‘…the manner in which the Panel reached, and/or explained, its decision-making falls short of the standard of justice…[144]

Having allowed the appeal, the Court afforded the parties the opportunity to ‘reflect on [the] next steps’ [145]