Judges give self-regulation a boost …
Professional self-regulation has been reinforced by England’s most senior civil judge, who has ruled that the Nursing and Midwifery Council is better placed than judges to decide whether a nurse’s “fascination with pornography” is incompatible with his professional role.
Earlier this year, the NMC served a paediatric nurse with a caution,
which will remain on his record for five years, after he was caught downloading
pornography from the internet while on night duty at London’s University
College Hospital. The Council for Healthcare
Regulatory Excellence sent
the case for review by the High Court because it believed that the caution
was not a serious enough penalty. In the High Court, Mr Justice Collins
ruled that the sanction was lenient, but not unduly lenient, which is
the test set for intervention by the court (PJ, 3 April, p403). The CHRE
appealed.
Now, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, has ruled that it is right
in this case to show some deference to the view of the NMC.
He said: “The [NMC] committee was as well placed, if not better
placed, than a judge or a panel of judges to decide whether [his] fascination
with pornography was incompatible with his role as a nurse.” There
was no error of principle or procedure in the NMC ruling, he added.
… and also undermine it in the Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips, has dismissed an appeal by
a GP against a High Court ruling that the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence can refer cases for reconsideration by the court when a
health professional has been found not guilty of professional misconduct
(PJ, 3 April, p403).
Lord Phillips ruled that the CHRE has power to challenge not only disciplinary
decisions, but also findings of innocence of any wrongdoing. The ruling
means that the CHRE can now ask the High Court to overturn a General
Medical Council decision that the GP’s affair with a female patient
did not amount to serious professional misconduct. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader