|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Enemuwe v Nursing And Midwifery Council  EWHC 2081 (Admin) (08 July 2015)
Cite as:  EWHC 2081 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL||Respondents|
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms J Lule (instructed by direct access) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Miss N Marsh (instructed by the NMC) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
Crown Copyright ©
i. "(1) On 14 September 2012 whilst providing care to Patient A:
(b) Were abrupt and rude in that you:
(i) Failed to introduce yourself as a midwife;
i. (ii) Said to Patient A and/or Patient A's husband words to the effect of "you don't know what you're talking about" and/or "what do you want now";
ii. (iii) Rolled your eyes when Patient A asked you for advice.
(c) Were unnecessarily rough with Patient A in that you:
(i) Pressed her stomach on one or more occasions whilst she was having contractions;
i. (ii) Roughly adjusted the TOCO transducer;
ii. (iii) Pulled away the placenta with force.
(d) Used your mobile phone on one or more occasion(s).
(e) Cut the umbilical cord without consulting Patient A and/or Patient A's husband when they had requested the option.
(f) Failed to gain consent from Patient A before administering a Syntometrine injection.
(g) Piled blood-soaked cotton swabs on Patient A's stomach and/or chest.
(h) Failed to effectively communicate and/or escalate Patient A's postpartum haemorrhage in a timely manner..."
i. "Between approximately 17 December 2012 and 7 February 2013 you stored copies of Patient A's records in your own home."
i. "The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was –
(a) wrong; or
(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court."
i. "31. (1) Upon receiving the advice of the legal assessor, and subject only to the requirements of relevance and fairness, a Practice Committee considering an allegation may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil proceedings (in the appropriate Court in that part of the United Kingdom in which the hearing takes place)."
i. "Sir, I will keep it extremely brief. The thing that is in issue here is whether [Ms 2] is a proper person in these proceedings to give opinion evidence against the registrant on the basis of what her perception of the case is. The key issue is that she was the investigating officer of the Trust who made the findings of fact with relation to these allegations. It is normal practice of course that the findings of fact made effectively by another panel or another person are generally not admissible in these proceedings and are not put before the panel -- as indeed her findings are not put before this particular panel." [my emphasis]
i. "The panel has considered whether the interests of justice and fairness require that Ms 2 should be recalled to give further evidence at the hearing. The panel is mindful that the content of the report [viz the supervisory investigation report] will potentially be relevant." [my emphasis]
i. "took the view that the respective recollections of Patient A and Mr A were not entirely reliable in light of the emotionally charged circumstances and the distress and fatigue they were experiencing at the material time."
i. "Mr Rich submitted that the evidence of Dr 1 could not be relied upon because she was told what the complaints about you were and that she did not complete a witness statement until 9 months after the incidents occurred. The panel was of the view that Dr 1 attempted to assist the panel and she was open and honest about details that she could not remember. The panel considers that her evidence was not tainted, but obviously she was recalling events from some time ago."
i. "Finally, the panel found your evidence [viz that of the Appellant] was professional, clear and consistent, albeit at odds in many respects from the other witnesses."
i. "The panel accepted that Ms 2 was an experienced midwife and SOM. The panel was also of the view that Ms 2's evidence was helpful, but came from a particular perspective as she was the person responsible for gathering the evidence for the internal investigation. The panel bore in mind that Ms 2 was not present at any time during the delivery of Patient A's baby and did not actually witness any of the alleged incidents."
i. "The outcome of the SOM investigation was that all the allegations against you were upheld, including the allegation that you spoke abruptly and/or rudely to Patient A and Mr A. Ms 2 confirmed this to the panel."
i. "You denied that you said words to the effect of "you don't know what you're talking about" and/or "what do you want now" to Patient A and Mr A. In light of the accounts of Patient A, Mr A, Dr 1 and Ms 4, the panel is of the view that it is more likely than not that you said words to the effect of "you don't know what you're talking about" and/or "what do you want now" to Patient A and Mr A. The panel therefore finds this charge proved."
i. "The outcome of the SOM investigation was that all the allegations against you were upheld, including the allegation that you inappropriately used your mobile phone whilst providing clinical care. Ms 2 confirmed this to the panel."
i. "You denied that you used your mobile phone at all. This is contradicted by the evidence from all of the direct witnesses. You told the panel that your mobile phone was not switched on while you were caring for Patient A."
i. "The panel noted the weight of the evidence and preferred the testimony of Patient A, Mr A, Dr 1, Ms 4 and Ms 3. The panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that you used your mobile phone while providing care for Patient A. Therefore, the panel finds this charge proved on the balance of probabilities."
i. "In the light of those authorities, the FTPP did not act unreasonably in concluding that the judgments would be relevant in providing an insight into the background to the cases and the forensic context in which Dr Squier prepared and gave her evidence, and in providing prima facie evidence of facts about the circumstances of the deaths, the post-mortems, what the parents said, and the medical issues faced at trials to which Dr Squier's evidence was relevant..."
i. "The FTPP did not decide that the judgments were to be admitted to prove the cause of death; that is not an issue for the FTPP. They are not relevant to prove that Dr Squier's evidence was not accepted or was found to be lacking in certain qualities. The issue before the FTPP is not whether Dr Squier was right or wrong which was the issue before the judges, but concerns the basis upon which she gave her evidence, its scope and her use of the underlying research papers. That is the crucial issue for the FTPP. The actual outcome of the trials, and any finding in or inferred from the redacted judgments that Dr Squier's evidence was rejected, is not relevant to these allegations of misconduct..."