1

Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee

Substantive Hearing

3 and 4 December 2020

Nursing and Midwifery Council Virtual Hearing

Name of registrant: Michelle Dalit Robinson NMC PIN: 02B1356O Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse – Sub Part 1 Adult Nursing – February 2002 Area of registered address: Northamptonshire Type of case: Caution Panel members: Catrin Davies (Chair, Lay member)

Alice Clarke (Registrant member) Linda Redford (Lay member)

Legal Assessor: Angela Hughes Panel Secretary: Xenia Menzl Nursing and Midwifery Council: Represented by Scott Smith, Case Presenter Mrs Robinson: Present and represented by Lewis MacDonald,

counsel instructed by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN)

Facts proved: All charges found proved by way admission Fitness to practise: Impaired Sanction: Suspension order for 2 months without a

review Interim order: N/A

2

Details of charge

That you, a Registered Nurse:

1) On 13 July 2019 accepted an adult conditional caution offered to you by

Bedfordshire Police in respect of two offences of fraud by false representation

AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your caution.

Background

This referral was received by the NMC from West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the

Trust’) on 16 July 2019, regarding a conditional caution for fraud you had received.

The caution related to two incidents of fraud on 25 and 26 June 2019. You signed and

accepted the caution order.

At the commencement of your shift on 25 June 2019, you stole a credit/debit card from the

wallet of one of your colleagues, took it across the road and used it to pay for £18.90

worth of cigarettes. You returned the credit/debit card to your colleague’s wallet, where

she was on the night shift.

At the completion of your night shift on 25 June 2019, at 08:30 hours on the morning of the

26 June 2019, you stole a wallet from another colleague who was on the day shift on 26

June 2019, and proceeded to withdraw £1400 in cash from their account. Your colleague

reported that her purse was missing to the police on the 26 June 2019. Over the course of

the afternoon and evening, your colleague was made aware of various transactions on her

card.

You were formally arrested at the Trust on 13 July 2019 and a search was conducted at

your home address where the police located £1380 in cash. You were taken into custody,

3

interviewed and admitted that you had stolen money from your colleagues on more than

one occasion.

You accepted a conditional caution from Bedfordshire Police, the condition being that you

repaid the stolen money. Both colleagues have been fully reimbursed the money which

you took.

Facts

The charge arose out of your conditional caution. The panel also noted your admission to

the charge.

The panel found that the facts are found proved by way of your admission in terms of Rule

24 (5) of the ‘Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004’, as

amended (the Rules).

Fitness to practise

Having announced its findings on the facts, the panel then considered whether, on the

basis of the facts found proved, your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of

your caution. There is no statutory definition of fitness to practise. However, the NMC has

defined fitness to practise as a registrant’s suitability to remain on the register unrestricted.

Submissions on impairment

You gave evidence under affirmation. You outlined your career history to the panel and

how you gained your nursing degree in the Philippines, and worked in Saudi Arabia for a

few years before coming to the UK in 2001. You explained that you started as a Band 5

staff nurse at the Trust, worked your way up to senior nurse level, and then to a Band 7

Bed Manager Nurse, which is an operational management role.

4

You accepted the facts and explained the circumstances of your conduct on that day. You

explained that you were in serious debt and that you were not in the right mind-set. You

said that you were the sole breadwinner for your family and that your husband sacrificed

his career to look after your three children whilst you were working for the family. You

stated that you were selfish at that point and too proud to ask for help from your family.

You explained that you have been working as a staff nurse in a care home since August

2019. You also told the panel that since August 2019 your husband is working and now

contributes to the income of the family.

You explained that being honest is an important trait for a nurse since you are highly

regarded in society. You stated that nurses should be trustworthy and honest since you

are considered to be an advocate for patients, residents, and their relatives. You said that

you are trusted by them and are expected to be on their side and be their voice, explaining

things clearly when they do not understand the doctors. You stated that patients and their

relatives rely on nurses to be clear and honest, which is why honesty is one of the biggest

characteristics for nurses. You acknowledged that being dishonest will have the effect of

the public losing its trust in nurses and that should the public learn about your conduct

they would think you would steal from them as well.

You stated that you have known your colleague for 19 years and that you do not know

how she feels about you now. However, you explained that when the police spoke to her

she has told them that in her heart she knows that you were ‘in a bad state’ to be able to

do this to her. You know that she has not forgiven you completely but that she will

eventually understand why you have stolen from her and forgive you. You stated that you

regret doing what you did and that you should not even have considered it. You

acknowledged that you should have asked for help when you were going through financial

problems and that if you had done so you could have received help, stopping you from

doing what you did.

5

You stated that you understand that the public puts a lot of trust into nurses, especially at

the moment when there is a global pandemic. You explained that being dishonest may

cause the patients’ relatives to completely lose trust in nurses.

You informed the panel about your current financial situation and that you are currently the

subject of an independent voluntary agreement, paying back your debt monthly. You

stated that even if you were allowed to apply for loans and credit cards you would not want

to go back to being in debt, unable to control yourself and you do not want to resort to your

past actions. You explained that should you find yourself in a similar situation, you now

know that you can rely on your relatives to help. You also explained that you now know of

government agencies who can provide assistance to people in your situation. You stated

that there is always someone willing to listen to and to understand what you are going

through. You acknowledged that selfishness led to your actions but that you would not let

this happen again. You stated that the police coming to your house traumatised your

youngest child and that you would not be able to put him through this again.

You stated that since you have been practising in the care home you have been focusing

on your duty of candour and your duty to care for the residents. You informed the panel

that you have completed a statutory duty of candour training in July 2020. You explained

that the duty of candour is a way of being clear and upfront to patients, residents, their

relatives and the rest of the public who are relying on nurses and medical staff. You stated

that if anything goes wrong you have to inform the relatives and next of kin, explain it to

them, express remorse and that it will not happen again. You said that if you had been

candid with your colleagues about your financial situation in June 2019, you would not be

in the situation you are in now.

During cross examination you stated that you understood that honesty is an extremely

important part of being a nurse before the events in 2019. You stated that you knew that

the reputation of nurses generally would be damaged by your dishonest actions but you

took the cards anyway. You acknowledged that your conduct damaged the trust patients

have in nurses. You stated that a nurse should always act in the best interests of their

6

patients and colleagues, however you acknowledged that when you stole your colleagues’

bank cards you were selfish and were too proud to ask for help.

You explained that you struggled with your conscience, having withdrawn your colleague’s

money. You stated that you had called her on the day but that she did not answer the

phone. You also stated that you took the money into work every day thinking about

returning it to your colleague but did not do so. However, you explained that once the

police issued the conditional caution, you paid her back the money immediately. You

acknowledged that stealing that amount of money from colleagues might impact them

negatively but you stated that at the time it was not something you thought about.

You explained that should you ever find yourself in a situation where you made a clinical

mistake and had the opportunity to cover it up you would not do so. You explained that

you would exercise your duty of candour and remind yourself that nurses have to be

honest and act with integrity. You explained that you are practising your duty of candour in

daily encounters with residents, their family and colleagues. You stated that you think

about what happened in 2019 every minute and that you try not to focus on it too much.

You explained that you regret your actions and often think about how it got to the point of

you acting this way.

During panel questions you explained that you first became aware that your colleague

noticed that her purse was missing on the afternoon of the 26 June, you tried to call her

but were informed that she was on the phone with the police. You told the panel that you

knew it was because of your actions. You admitted that despite that knowledge you went

on to withdraw the money. You stated that you did not use the money for anything in

particular.

Mr Smith addressed the panel on the issue of impairment and reminded the panel to have

regard to protecting the public and the wider public interest. This included the need to

declare and maintain proper standards and maintain public confidence in the profession

and in the NMC as a regulatory body. This included reference to the cases of Council for

7

Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011]

EWHC 927 (Admin) and Ronald Jack Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581

(Admin).

Mr Smith submitted that all four limbs of Grant were engaged in this case. He submitted

that whilst there was no harm caused to any patients, your actions call into question your

reliability and integrity. He therefore submitted that it is likely that you may put patients at

unwarranted risk of harm if you were put in a situation where you needed support, and

were too proud to seek help. Mr Smith submitted that there is enough evidence before the

panel to show that you can succumb to your ego as in this situation you were too proud to

ask for help. He submitted that it would be likely that you may take a different route and

attempt to cover up any issues which may have occurred. Furthermore, he submitted that

you are at present working in a care home with some of the most vulnerable members of

society, who may be considered an easy target in a moment of weakness. Mr Smith

therefore submitted that under such circumstances patient harm is likely to occur.

Mr Smith submitted that the second, third and fourth limbs could be considered together.

He submitted that both aspects of each are engaged, through your dishonest and criminal

action you have brought the nursing profession into disrepute, have breached the

fundamental tenets of the medical profession and have acted dishonestly. He submitted

that you are also likely to do so in the future. Mr Smith referred to the parts of the code

that you have breached, most importantly, that a nurse is to act with honesty and integrity

at all times. He submitted that the incidents, albeit not clinical, took place in the clinical

setting of the hospital with your conduct aimed at colleagues. He submitted that you are

likely to do so in the future.

In relation to insight, Mr Smith submitted that although you accepted the allegations from

the outset when challenged by the police, you only accepted your wrongdoings after being

confronted by the police. This was not volunteered. He reminded the panel that two weeks

had passed between the commission of the offences and the confession within the

8

interview, despite police involvement on the day of the second offence, and you being

aware of the police being contacted.

Mr Smith acknowledged that you stated that you were thinking about returning the money

and held on to it for such purposes. However, he submitted that it would have been easier

to admit to your offence and hold your hands up as soon as the police became involved.

He submitted that your regret over the current situation is because you were caught and

referred to the NMC.

Mr Smith then reminded the panel that the fraud committed on the 25 June 2019 was in

order to purchase 40 cigarettes. He submitted that this is not an essential item and that

these are not the actions of a person trying to reduce her financial hardship. He submitted

that you did not succumb to temptation but that your actions are rather a demonstrable

choice to act, knowing this was wrong. He submitted that it was a conscious choice

between forgoing cigarettes and committing a crime. He then submitted that, realising you

got away with your conduct you then decided to steal your other colleague’s purse and

proceed to make a series of withdrawals.

Mr Smith submitted that this is not the behaviour of someone who acted in the heat of the

moment, but rather a calculated decision over the period of two days forming a course of

conduct. He questioned your intention to return the money, and noted that the purse and

its other contents were not returned to your colleague.

Mr Smith reminded the panel that you stated that you could have turned to your family for

help, however chose not to due to your ego. He submitted that these are the actions of

someone who chose to behave in such a way and only confessed after confrontation. He

submitted that in your reflective piece your insight seemed forced. However, he submitted

that your conduct was a conscious choice to commit criminal acts. Furthermore, he stated

that in your reflective piece you talk about being honest with everyone, but with insufficient

emphasis on being honest with your colleagues. He submitted that this further shows a

lack of insight.

9

Mr Smith referred the panel to the certificates and references relating to your competency

as a nurse. He submitted that at this juncture it does not assist the panel as your clinical

skills have not been in dispute and there are no clinical concerns. He submitted therefore

they are not useful when considering remediation.

Mr Smith submitted that the conduct shown by you is not easily remediable. He submitted

that it is a criminal offence for which you received a criminal caution relating to dishonesty.

He submitted that this type of conduct is indicative of attitudinal problems. He

acknowledged that your conduct was as a result of financial pressure. However, he stated

that this pressure is still present and will be for the near future.

Mr Smith submitted that your conduct has not been remediated as the financial pressure is

still present and whilst steps have been taken to reduce the pressure there is a real risk of

repetition in the future. He then submitted that the likelihood of repetition is high.

Furthermore, he stated that the submitted references show that your actions were out of

character and submitted that this shows that you behaviour is unpredictable. He submitted

that the fact that the debt is still present demonstrates that there is a real risk of repetition.

Mr Smith therefore submitted that there is a real risk of you bringing the nursing profession

into further disrepute, breaching the one of the fundamental tenets of the medical

profession and acting dishonestly in the future. He submitted that a finding of no

impairment would seriously damage and undermine the confidence in the NMC as a

regulator and the profession as a whole. He submitted that your actions are in direct

conflict with the primary and expected standards of nursing.

Mr Smith therefore submitted that your behaviour was such that you were and are

currently impaired on the grounds of public protection and also in the public interest.

Mr MacDonald, on your behalf, profoundly disagreed with the NMC submissions and

invited the panel to find that, as of today, your fitness to practise is not impaired.

10

Mr MacDonald first addressed the panel in regard to public protection. He submitted that

you gave evidence under affirmation and expressed profound and full remorse and insight.

He submitted that during your evidence the panel could see the effect this incident has

had on you, how you have modified your thinking, and identified where your thinking went

wrong. He submitted that you acknowledged that you acted selfishly putting your ego first

and have not sought to say that what you have done was not done consciously. However,

he submitted that you have now fully reflected on your actions, and that this was evident in

your oral evidence and in your written reflection.

Mr MacDonald argued against your characterisation as unpredictable. He submitted that

nothing could be further from the truth. Mr MacDonald submitted that you understand what

went wrong in 2019, and this will ultimately prevent you behaving in this way again. He

stated that you are now much better equipped to deal with the pressures that arose last

year should they reappear. He submitted that you are likely to be an especially honest

nurse and person because you know how wrong you can go, and what the consequences

are.

Mr MacDonald submitted that not only did you show remorse when the police confronted

you but you also told the police about the additional transaction that took place on 25

June. You were not a woman thinking that you got away with your dishonest actions.

Furthermore, Mr MacDonald submitted that you kept a hold of the money you withdrew in

your house. He submitted that this shows that although you had been in debt, and were so

desperate that you risked your career with your actions, you did not do anything with the

money. He submitted that this shows the inner internal turmoil you were in before the

police came to your door. He submitted that you could not bring yourself to use the

money, but also could not find a way to return it to your colleague. Mr MacDonald referred

the panel to the case of Cohen and submitted that the panel should ask itself if this is the

kind of conduct to which the Cohen questions apply.

11

Mr MacDonald acknowledged that your actions are not easily remediable, but submitted

that they are remediable. He submitted that you have remedied your actions with your

deep remorse and insight. He reminded the panel that you have been practising as a staff

nurse in a care home for 16 months under interim conditions imposed by the NMC and

that you have demonstrated that you can practise safely. He reminded the panel that you

produced glowing testimonials speaking to your character and how this experience has

affected you. He reminded the panel that two of these testimonials were from colleagues

who worked with you in the hospital where the incidents took place. He submitted that

these are highly relevant and not only speak to your clinical competence but to your

integrity and character. He submitted that these colleagues do not condemn you and state

that your offences were out of character. Mr MacDonald invited the panel to conclude that

these speak in your favour and not to conclude that your behaviour is unpredictable and

likely to be repeated.

Mr MacDonald stated that you have been thinking about your actions every second since

they happened. He referred the panel to your reflective piece in which you state that what

happened in 2019 would be part of your being for the rest of your days. He submitted that

this shows that you are extremely remorseful about your actions and that you regret

having betrayed a friend. Mr MacDonald submitted that this regret and remorse go far

beyond this hearing. He further submitted that your past dishonesty has made you more

honest and that it is highly unlikely that you will repeat your conduct.

Mr MacDonald then addressed the panel with regard to public interest. He accepted that

there was some merit in the submissions made by the NMC on the wider public interest.

He submitted that there was nothing you could say to detract from the seriousness of your

actions in 2019.

However, Mr MacDonald submitted that, on balance, a finding of current impairment on

public interest grounds is not necessary for two main reasons. He submitted that whilst

this was a serious incident of dishonesty there are some mitigating features:

12

Once confronted you were upfront immediately and admitted more than the police

knew;

You acted out of character, personally and within your career as a nurse;

Your deep remorse was sufficient for the police to conclude the matter by way of a

conditional caution; and

You immediately fully complied with the conditions, and it expired almost a year

ago.

Mr MacDonald submitted that in December 2020 there is a second factor, marked by four

things:

You have lost your position at the hospital and are now working in a much less

senior position. It is uncertain whether your career will recover fully from your

actions, however it will have a lasting impact on it, whether your fitness to practise

is found impaired or not;

The conditional caution marks your misconduct, leaving a heavy stain on your

otherwise unblemished character;

The interim conditions of practice order, imposed by the NMC, has restricted your

practice for about 16 months or so; and

The very fact of these proceedings which have been another salutary lesson.

Mr MacDonald submitted that in the case of Grant the circumstances were very different.

He questioned whether the public, having heard and read about the full circumstances,

would ask for any further action against you. He submitted that a reasonably informed

member of the public would not think that your practice is a danger to the public,

reputation of the nursing profession or the NMC as a regulator. Mr MacDonald submitted

that they would see someone who made a terrible decision, reversed it very quickly and

paid for the consequences; they would see someone who worked tirelessly through a

global pandemic when nurses were needed more than ever. He therefore submitted that a

finding of current impairment would not serve the public, nor would it be in anyone’s

interest.

13

The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor which included reference to a number

of relevant judgments. These included the cases of Grant and Cohen.

Decision and reasons on impairment

The panel next went on to decide if as a result of the caution, your fitness to practise is

currently impaired.

Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to

be professional. Patients and their families must be able to trust nurses with their lives and

the lives of their loved ones. To justify that trust, nurses must be honest and open and act

with integrity. They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their

patients’ and the public’s trust in the profession.

In this regard the panel considered the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE

v NMC and Grant in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said:

‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by

reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only

whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the

public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper

professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be

undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular

circumstances.’

In paragraph 76, Mrs Justice Cox referred to Dame Janet Smith's “test” which reads as

follows:

‘Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor’s misconduct, deficient

professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or

14

determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense

that s/he:

a) has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to

put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the

medical profession into disrepute; and/or

c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach

one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or

d) has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act

dishonestly in the future.’

The panel found your conduct breached the fundamental tenets of the nursing profession

and therefore brought its reputation into disrepute. It was satisfied that confidence in the

nursing profession would be undermined if its regulator did not find charges relating to

dishonesty extremely serious. Whilst it considered the dishonesty to be difficult to

remediate, it concluded that due to the nature of your conduct, your actions could never be

fully remedied. However, the panel was not persuaded by the suggestion that you have

and may in the future put patients at unwarranted risk of harm. It disagreed with Mr

Smith’s suggestion and concluded that this limb of Grant was not engaged.

Regarding insight, the panel considered that in your written reflection and your oral

evidence you have demonstrated some insight. It was of the view that you were clear

about the effects these incidents had on you and the panel was satisfied that you have

modified your thinking and identified where it has gone wrong in the past. The panel noted

that you have shown a significant amount of reflection. However, the panel noted that you

behaved in a very selfish manner, and that you have not sufficiently reflected on the effect

and hardship your conduct caused to your colleagues.

15

In its consideration of whether you have remedied your actions, the panel took into

account that dishonesty is difficult to remediate. However, it considered your evidence and

the testimonials provided by you, which indicated that you acted out of character. Two of

these testimonials were from colleagues who had worked with you at the hospital where

the incidents took place. The panel found that your explanations have been

comprehensive and that you have owned up to your actions from the outset. It concluded

that you have to some degree remedied your conduct, in so far as dishonesty can be

remediated.

When considering the risk of repetition, the panel was of the view that in cases of

dishonesty it is always difficult to assess the future risk. The panel considered your insight,

remediation and the events that took place in June 2019. Looking at the course of your

conduct the panel concluded that these were premeditated offences, and noted that you

went on to withdraw money despite knowing that your colleague was looking for her purse

and that the police had been involved. The panel therefore concluded that having taken

insight and remorse into account, there remains some risk of repetition.

The panel noted that your circumstances in 2019 and the actions that followed had no

impact on your clinical practice. It therefore concluded that for the reasons noted above

that a finding of impairment on public protections grounds is not necessary.

However, the panel bore in mind that the overarching objectives of the NMC are to protect,

promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public and patients, and to

uphold/protect the wider public interest, which includes promoting and maintaining public

confidence in the nursing and midwifery professions and upholding the proper professional

standards for members of those professions.

The panel determined that, in this case, a finding of impairment on public interest grounds

was required. It was of the view that with your actions you have brought the profession

into disrepute and have damaged the trust your patients, their relatives, the public and

16

especially your colleagues have in the nursing profession. It therefore concluded that a

finding of impairment is necessary to uphold the standards within the nursing profession

and to maintaining public confidence in the nursing profession.

Having regard to all of the above, the panel was satisfied that your fitness to practise is

currently impaired.

Sanction

The panel has considered this case very carefully and has decided to make a suspension

order for a period of two months. The effect of this order is that the NMC register will show

that your registration has been suspended.

In reaching this decision, the panel has had regard to all the evidence that has been

adduced in this case and had careful regard to the Sanctions Guidance (SG) published by

the NMC. The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

Submissions on sanction

Mr Smith addressed the panel on the mitigating and aggravating features in this case. He

submitted that the panel should balance the potential loss to the profession of a proficient

and competent nurse with the importance of marking the seriousness of the case and the

public interest.

Mr Smith submitted that a caution order would be wholly disproportionate to the concerns

identified in this case. He submitted that in light of the findings a caution order would

considerably undermine public confidence in the profession.

Mr Smith submitted that the nature of the incidents, namely your clandestine actions and

concealment in this case, mean that there are no workable conditions which could be

imposed as part of a conditions of practice order. He also submitted that a conditions of

practice order would not appropriately mark the seriousness of your actions. He reminded

17

the panel that whilst you have been subject to an interim conditions of practice order, its

purpose is to protect the public rather than to mark the seriousness of concerns. He

submitted that as such, whilst an interim conditions of practice order may have been

appropriate during the investigation stage, it is not during the sanction stage. He submitted

that a conditions of practice order would not mark the seriousness of the incidents and

would not properly maintain public confidence.

Mr Smith submitted that a 12 month suspension order with a review before expiry may be

the most appropriate sanction in this case.

Mr MacDonald also addressed the panel on the mitigating and aggravating factors in this

case. He submitted that the mitigating factors in this case outweigh the aggravating

factors. He submitted that the dishonesty in this case had an element of opportunism

committed over a relatively short period of time. He submitted that your actions had no

impact on your clinical practice.

Mr MacDonald submitted that proportionality is important in this case and the sanction

should not go further than needed. He submitted that the panel should take account of any

hardship caused to you by any restriction which would limit your ability to practise as a

nurse.

Mr MacDonald invited the panel to impose a caution order. He reminded it that it had

found impairment solely on public interest grounds. He submitted that a caution order

would be sufficient to mark that the behaviour was unacceptable and must not happen

again. He submitted that although the dishonesty is not at the lower end of the spectrum, a

caution order was still a viable sanction. He submitted that your behaviour was already

marked through the conditional police caution, you were subject to an interim conditions of

practice order for a period of 16 months, you lost your senior position and job at the

hospital due to your actions, and you were subject to these NMC proceedings. Mr

MacDonald submitted that adding a caution order to this would sufficiently mark the

seriousness of your behaviour in this case.

18

Mr Macdonald submitted that should the panel not be with him on this, a conditions of

practice order in similar terms as the interim conditions of practice order would be

appropriate. He submitted that a suspension or striking-off order would be wholly

disproportionate in this case and unnecessarily remove a competent nurse from the

register.

Decision and reasons on sanction

Having found your fitness to practise currently impaired, the panel went on to consider

what sanction, if any, it should impose in this case. The panel has borne in mind that any

sanction imposed must be appropriate and proportionate, although not intended to be

punitive in its effect, may have such consequences. The panel had careful regard to the

SG. The decision on sanction is a matter for the panel independently exercising its own

judgement.

The panel took into account the following aggravating features:

You abused your position of trust not only as nurse but also in your position as

a senior manager; and

The repetition of your conduct over two days.

The panel also took into account the following mitigating features:

You made immediate admissions when approached by the police;

You have demonstrated some insight;

You have shown significant reflection, albeit less so with regard to the effect on your colleagues;

At the time you were under significant stress due to extreme financial pressures;

Full compliance with the interim conditions of practice order; and

Positive testimonials, from both current and previous colleagues, indicating that you are an asset to the profession.

19

The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would be

inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case. The panel decided that it would be

neither proportionate nor in the public interest to take no further action.

It then considered the imposition of a caution order but again determined that, due to the

seriousness of the case, an order that does not restrict your practice would not be

appropriate in the circumstances. The SG states that a caution order may be appropriate

where ‘the case is at the lower end of the spectrum of impaired fitness to practise and the

panel wishes to mark that the behaviour was unacceptable and must not happen again.’

The panel considered that your offence was not at the lower end of the spectrum and that

a caution order would be inappropriate in view of the issues identified. The panel decided

that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to impose a caution order.

The panel next considered whether placing a conditions of practice on your registration

would be a sufficient and appropriate response. The panel was mindful that any conditions

imposed must be proportionate, measurable and workable. The panel took into account

the SG, in particular:

No evidence of harmful deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems;

Patients will not be put in danger either directly or indirectly as a result of

the conditions; and

The conditions will protect patients during the period they are in force;

The panel concluded that the placing of conditions on your registration would not

adequately address the seriousness of this case. It was of the view that due to the

dishonesty identified in this case it could not formulate conditions that can be

monitored and assessed. The panel is of the view that there are no practical or

workable conditions that could be formulated, given the nature of the charges in

this case. The dishonesty identified in this case was not something that can be

addressed through retraining.

20

The panel then went on to consider whether a suspension order would be an appropriate

sanction. The SG states that a suspension order may be appropriate where some of the

following factors are apparent:

A single instance of misconduct but where a lesser sanction is not

sufficient;

No evidence of harmful deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems;

No evidence of repetition of behaviour since the incident; and

The Committee is satisfied that the nurse or midwife has insight and does

not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour;

The panel was satisfied that in this case, your conduct was not fundamentally

incompatible with remaining on the register.

The panel did go on to consider whether a striking-off order would be proportionate. It took

account of all the information before it, the fact that there were no public protection

concerns and the mitigation provided, and therefore the panel concluded that it would be

disproportionate. Whilst the panel acknowledges that a suspension may have a punitive

effect, it would be unduly punitive in your case to impose a striking-off order.

Balancing all of these factors the panel has concluded that a suspension order would be

the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

The panel noted the hardship such an order will inevitably cause you. However, this is

outweighed by the public interest in this case.

The panel considered that this order is necessary to mark the importance of maintaining

public confidence in the profession, and to send to the public and the profession a clear

message about the standard of behaviour required of a registered nurse.

21

In making this decision, the panel carefully considered the submissions of Mr Smith in

relation to the sanction that the NMC was seeking in this case. However, the panel

considered that 12 months of suspension would be wholly disproportionate in this case. It

noted that you accepted your wrongdoing, you agreed to the conditional police caution,

you were subject to an interim conditions of practice order for a period of 16 months, you

lost your senior position and job at the hospital due to your actions, and you were subject

to these NMC proceedings. The panel was of the view that these consequences have

clearly marked the seriousness of this case to you and a longer period of suspension

would be unduly punitive. Furthermore, the panel was of the view that removing a good

and capable nurse from the register for any longer than necessary during a global

pandemic would be against the public interest.

The panel therefore determined that a suspension order for a period of two months was

appropriate in this case to mark the seriousness of your dishonesty.

Having found that your fitness to practise is currently impaired, the panel bore in mind that

it determined there were no public protection concerns arising from its decision. In this

respect it found your fitness to practise impaired on the grounds of public interest.

In accordance with Article 29 (8A) of the Order the panel may exercise its discretionary

power and determine that a review of the substantive order is not necessary.

The panel determined that it made the suspension order having found your fitness to

practise currently impaired in the public interest. The panel was satisfied that the

suspension order will satisfy the public interest in this case and will maintain public

confidence in the profession as well as the NMC as the regulator. Further, the suspension

order will declare and uphold proper professional standards. Accordingly, the current

suspension order will expire without review.

This will be confirmed to you in writing.