D, a registered nurse, was referred to the NMC by a member of the public in November 2017. The referrer alleged that D had dishonestly conducted an inaccurate PIP assessment in December 2016.
The case was closed at the NMC’s screening stage but, after repeated complaints and further evidence from the referrer, was eventually reopened and referred to investigations in April 2021. Further evidence was obtained by the NMC resulting in additional allegations but, at the end of the investigation, the Case Examiners decided D had no case to answer. This decision was then reviewed by an Assistant Registrar and deemed to be flawed. The case was again remitted back for further investigation. Additional evidence was obtained, and this time, in 2025 the Case Examiners determined that D did have a case to answer after all.
Khaled represented D at the final hearing in June 2026. The vast majority of the evidence relied on by the NMC was by this stage hearsay, as some witnesses who had provided statements and exhibits had died, others were uncontactable or unable to attend through illness.
The NMC’s applications to admit hearsay evidence were largely rejected on the basis that it would be unfair to D, who would not be able to challenge it through cross-examination. Additional concerns included the inadequate efforts made to secure witness attendance and the manner in which certain witness statements had been obtained - there was evidence that at least one witness potentially never even saw their signed statement, as their evidence had been obtained and provided to the NMC by another witness in the case.
Following the panel’s decision on admissibility, the NMC was forced to offer no evidence in respect of two charges, and to amend others to reflect the evidence that was admissible.
The panel heard live evidence from four witnesses for the NMC. At the conclusion of the NMC’s case, Khaled made detailed submissions of no case to answer on all the remaining charges. The panel was presented with a forensic examination of the evidence before it and it was submitted that the NMC had not discharged its burden of proof.
On Day 12 of the hearing, the panel handed down its decision, that there was no case to answer on the remaining nine charges. D did not have to give evidence - the entire case ended there and then, almost nine years after the referral was first made.
There are many lessons that could be learned from this case, but one of the starkest is that: not all evidence is fair to admit. There tends to be a presumption that, because hearsay evidence is not automatically inadmissible, it should simply be a matter for a panel to determine what weight to attach to it. That is not always the case, and it should not be put before panels in the first place - particularly when it amounts to hundreds of pages of prejudicial evidence that they will potentially have to “put out of their minds”.
Further, that registrants should not be burdened with challenging the vast majority of the case against them through legal argument. If an entire case is dismissed at half-time as no case to answer, something has gone very wrong in its preparation. The entire fitness to practise process should be robust enough to ensure that registrants are not expected to answer to allegations that are without merit.
