Daniel Brown and Louise Hartley successful for senior midwife in major disciplinary case of Richmond v NMC
19th August 2025
海角破解版's disciplinary barristers聽Daniel Brown听补苍诲听Louise Hartley, instructed by 聽 of law firm ,聽acted for the senior midwife Ms Richmond in the major new test case of聽Richmond v NMC [2025] EWHC 1828 (Admin).聽This case is a rare example of the High Court refusing to extend an interim order on the application of the NMC.
An Interim Conditions of Practice Order was imposed on Ms Richmond on 11 January 2024 and reviewed on three occasions. The allegations against Ms Richmond concern allegedly discriminatory remarks, in relation to a transgender colleague, and the use of a religious space at the Trust where Ms Richmond was employed.
The Interim Order was due to expire on 10 July 2025 and the NMC applied to the High Court to extend the Order.
The NMC argued that the remarks allegedly made by Ms Richmond raise a risk that she would treat patients in certain groups differently to others. Rejecting this, the High Court stated there was in fact no evidence she had ever done so in 45 years of practice. Moreover, none of the remarks had been made to a patient or in the context of patient care. The NMC failed to show any substantive risk to patients.
The High Court considered the NMC鈥檚 case in relation to whether an Interim Order was 鈥榦therwise in the public interest鈥�. The reasons of the first panel stated:
an interim order was otherwise in the public interest as a well-informed and reasonable member of the public would be concerned if they were to learn a nurse facing such allegations was allowed to practise without restrictions at this time.
At the most recent review, the panel stated that:
The panel concluded that a member of the general public would be concerned if a midwife in a senior position, who had allegedly made discriminatory remarks, continued to practise unrestricted.
The High Court considered that the panel had repeated the same error identified in聽NMC v Persand [2023] EWHC 3356 (Admin)聽where an NMC panel had made similar observations that 鈥渁n informed member of the public would be concerned if a registered nurse facing such allegations was allowed to practise without restriction whilst an investigation was carried out by the NMC.鈥�
The judgment concluded: 鈥淚t seems to me, on my reading of the material, that, in fact, what the Council has done is to act in a way which the court in Persand said that it could not do; namely to express a concern that a member of the public would have concerns if allegations such as this did not result in restrictions being imposed on a practitioner. In the case of Persand, such concerns were said to be wholly insufficient鈥 have considered the public interest but, for the reasons I have just given, that public interest is not such as to require the interim order to continue in this case.鈥�
It appears that the words 鈥榓 member of the public would be concerned鈥� have become a 鈥榮tock phrase鈥� used without much elaboration in many NMC decisions. The judgment in this case suggests that some Interim Order decisions using this stock phrase may be vulnerable to challenge in the High Court, particularly where there is no clear evidence of a risk of harm to patients.
Daniel and Louise, who are both part of 海角破解版's specialist Professional Disciplinary team, will be giving a briefing of this case via webinar. Details of this will follow. Do email [email protected]聽if you would like to attend and we will register you and send you the link.
If you wish to instruct or contact Daniel or Louise in regards to this case please contact Russell Porter via email [email protected] or via telephone 01865 793 736.