No Need to Remit: NMC v Ibrahim [2025] EWCA 1631 (Admin)

Challenges to the facts on appeal are difficult at the best of times, and even if they are successful, the Registrant may face a rerun of the entire hearing. However, the court does not need to order remit, or indeed even make substitute findings of its own.

The facts can be set out briefly. The Registrant was accused of confining a vulnerable and distressed patient to her room by holding the door closed, thereby causing her unnecessary suffering. The Registrant agreed that he had refused to let the patient out of her room. His argument was that the patient had been stepped down from 2:1 care to 1:1 care contrary to a DOLS that had recently been put in place, and without any proper assessment of whether that was appropriate. He felt that she continued to need 2:1 care as she was volatile and had tried to abscond (successfully on two occasions), even when being watched by two staff. The Registrant further said that, during the incident itself, he was afraid the patient was about to attack him.

The original panel found the main charges proved, and imposed a 12-month Conditions of Practice Order, and an interim order covering the appeal period in the same terms. The main problem with the panel’s approach was that its reasons did not engage at all with the arguments made by the Registrant. No mention was made of the DOLS, a statutory document, which had assessed the patient as needing 2:1 care. Nor was there any analysis of how or why the nurse-in-charge at the unit had decided to step that down to 1:1. The High Court quashed the factual and other findings and decided that the case should not be remitted.

The NMC appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the decision not to remit would leave these serious allegations undetermined and was therefore contrary to its duty to protect the public.

The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had been under no obligation to make alternative findings of fact, even if he was not remitting the case for reconsideration. He had been entitled to assess whether there was any purpose is the case being run again with all the witnesses attending. The court pointed out that, even having ignored the Registrant’s entire case (which amounted pretty much to taking the NMC case at its highest), the panel had thought the misconduct found merited no more than an order of conditions. The Court agreed with the Judge that, had the panel taken the Registrant’s explanations into account, any misconduct found would have been less serious, and so would have attracted a lesser sanction, or no sanction at all. The Judge had also not erred in taking into account the length of time since the index events (nine years) and the fact that, in all that time, the Registrant had not re-offended and had shown insight and remorse.

The interest in this case for practitioners lies in the reminder it provides that the scheme for nurses (and other health professionals) allows for remittal, but does not mandate it. In the right case, the Registrant can get the case thrown out altogether in the High Court.