Background

On 6 February 2024, a Fitness to Practise Panel of the Defendant found that the Appellant's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. The misconduct consisted of a number of instances of dishonesty which the Appellant, Ms Nurrish, had admitted. The Panel imposed a 12-month suspension from practice, starting on 5 March 2024, with provision for a review prior to the expiry of that period.

Ms Nurrish appeared before a review panel in January 2025. Although she provided reflective evidence, testimonials, and training records, the Panel concluded—without prior warning—that she had been deliberately dishonest in her oral evidence regarding voluntary caring roles. On that basis, the Panel found continuing impairment and imposed a striking off order.

Ms Nurrish appealed on the grounds that the dishonesty finding was unsafe and procedurally unfair.

The High Court’s Reasoning

Mr Justice Eyre held that the Panel’s finding of deliberate dishonesty was wrong and could not stand. Key considerations included:

1. Procedural fairness: The Panel did not put its concerns about dishonesty directly to Ms Nurrish, depriving her of a fair opportunity to respond.
2. Questioning and context: The hearing was delayed, held remotely, and involved rapid, repetitive questioning, contributing to Ms Nurrish’s visible anxiety and occasional confusion.
3. Weak evidential foundation: The alleged inconsistencies that gave rise to the finding of dishonesty arose largely from inferences drawn from testimonials, not clear contradictions in the evidence given. The Panel failed to consider alternative explanations for those inconsistencies, including the lapse of time and the likelihood that referees had given a heightened view of what Ms Nurrish had done while understating matters in evidence.
4. Insufficient legal direction: The Panel received no advice on the test for dishonesty or the caution required before making such a finding.
5. Panel’s reasons: The panel set out their reasons for the dishonesty decision in very short terms. They were entitled to give their reasons succinctly, but there was no indication that the Panel had given any consideration as to why the inconsistencies amounted to deliberate dishonesty.
6. Virtual hearings: The reliability of a witness's account can be assessed over a remote link. However, the scope for assessing body language and nuance is reduced in a virtual hearing when compared to a hearing in which the witness and those assessing the evidence are in the same physical space.

Because the dishonesty finding was unsafe, the associated impairment finding and striking off order were set aside, with the matter remitted to a fresh panel.

Key learnings for Regulators

The judgment reinforces several practical learning points:

1. Clear procedural signalling: If dishonesty in oral evidence is under consideration, it must be expressly put to the registrant.
2. Focused, structured questioning: Panels should avoid repetitive or disjointed questioning, particularly where registrants are unrepresented or anxious.
3. Robust evidential analysis: Panels must distinguish between genuine inconsistency and differing interpretations, especially where evidence is historic or second-hand.
4. Comprehensive legal advice: Legal assessors must proactively advise on the test for dishonesty, evidential caution and potential fairness issues.
5. Documentation of reasoning: Reasons must show engagement with competing explanations and the inherent probabilities.
6. While virtual hearings are lawful and efficient, they carry evidential and fairness risks that must be actively case managed.

How Capsticks Can Help

For regulators seeking to strengthen decision-making and reduce the risk of avoidable appeals, this case underscores the importance of procedural clarity, evidential rigour, and disciplined panel management. As practitioners supporting regulatory bodies, we can help design processes, training, and case strategies that embed these safeguards and promote resilient, defensible decision-making.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Edwards, Principal Associate, Barrister and Millie Barnecut, Trainee Solicitor in our Regulatory Team. If you have any queries around what is discussed in this article, and the impact on your organisation, please speak to Matthew Edwards or anyone in our regulatory team to find out more about how Capsticks can help.