Whilst the judgment in Wylie and NMC was handed down in the High Court of Northern Ireland some weeks ago (12/6/26) it highlights the difficulties that a panel can find itself in when serious errors are made by the regulator. The charge had included allegations of dishonesty related to the financial abuse of residents [2]

The events occurred between 2002 to 2012. 14 of the 15 charges were proved. A striking off order was made [1]. The hearing took place over 55 days between 2021 and 2024. The registrant’s appeal involved challenges to the Panel’s finding of fact and the manner that the hearing had been conducted(14).

Disclosure:

The Appellant challenged the NMC’s approach to her request for disclosure (including policies which ‘might be relevant to the practices being followed’) and the panel decision that followed. The ‘initial response of the NMC was that the Appellant was duty bound to seek these documents herself’(21).

The Court determined:

• ‘the Committee was taken down the wrong path entirely by both the case presenter and the legal assessor. It got the test for disclosure wrong…Not only does this represent a serious irregularity in the present case, but it is a real cause for concern if this attitude is one which is representative of the approach of the NMC generally’(26).

Prejudicial material:

The Appellant contended that information outlined in the ‘opening’ as well as witness evidence which confirmed the Trust’s ‘unanimous conclusion…that there had been financial abuse’(29,33) was prejudicial.

The Court determined:

• ‘it should have been entirely obvious to those presenting the case for the NMC to the Committee that [the witness] was entirely wrong in including in her statement evidence that the case conference ‘was unanimous in agreeing that financial abuse had occurred’[39] and a ‘serious irregularity’.

Dishonesty:

The Appellant asserted that the panel misdirected itself in respect of the test for dishonesty(42).

The Court determined:

• ‘having correctly identified the proper legal test, the case presenter misrepresented the approach which the panel should take…’ (46).
• ‘The legal assessor did not correct the error. If he had done so, the Committee’s findings on dishonesty might have been salvageable, but since he did not, in my judgment, they are not (50)

Conclusion:

The Court concluded:

• ‘The cumulative effect of these issues is that… all but one of the charges proved…cannot possibly stand’. The finding were quashed together with the decision to remove the registrant from the register[61]

The Court observed that ‘The fractured and prolonged nature of the hearings…give rise to the question of whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing…’. Referring to criticisms made in Johnson and Maggs, the Court concluded that ‘[i]t is hard to see how the same finding is avoidable…’ [58]