AC-2025-LON-000651 - [2025] EWHC 2814 (Admin)

Fecha: 03-Nov-2025

BACKGROUND

The allegations against Ms Jerry that formed the basis of the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel in 2015 arose out of events which took place on a night shift at the Royal Surrey Hospital between 17 and 18 August 2011. At this time, Ms Jerry was employed as an agency nurse. During the night of 17 and 18 August 2011 a patient, Patient A, became unwell. As a result, her observation chart was checked. Ms Jerry had, prior to that point, been responsible for checking Patient A. Inspection of the observation chart revealed that Ms Jerry had entered a question mark in relation to oxygen saturation levels on Patient A’s observations chart, in place of a saturation reading. Ms Jerry did not document any explanation for the entry of the question mark on the observation chart. Later in the shift, Ms Jerry changed her entry of a question mark to one stating that Patient A’s oxygen levels were 95. Ms Jerry did not make it clear that the entry was retrospective. Patient A died the following day. There is no suggestion that the death of Patient A was linked to Ms Jerry’s care.

10.

The first substantive hearing in respect of Ms Jerry before the CCC took place between 16 and 24 September 2013. At that hearing, three charges relating to events at the Royal Surrey Hospital, and eight charges relating to incidents at another hospital, were found proved. As a result, the CCC ordered that Ms Jerry be struck from the Nursing Register. Ms Jerry appealed the decision of the CCC. The NMC conceded the appeal and the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a freshly constituted panel of the CCC.

11.

The re-hearing took place before the CCC between 1 and 15 May 2015 and 19 and 25 August 2015. Only the three charges relating to events at the Royal Surrey Hospital were proceeded with. The charges were set out in a notice of hearing sent to Ms Jerry on 8 April 2015 and comprised the following:

“That you, whilst working as a band 5 staff nurse employed at Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) between 2006 and 2010, failed to meet the competencies expected of a Band 5 nurse in that you:
1.
Failed to inform the nurse in charge that Patient A had raised blood pressure;
2.
In respect of Patient A’s oxygen saturation levels:
(a)
did not measure the levels at 22:00;
(b)
documented the levels at 22:00 on Patient A’s observations chart as ‘?’;
(c)
did not document any explanation for the entry of ‘?’;
(d)
later in the shift, changed your entry described at 2(c) above to one stating that the levels were 95, and did not make clear that entry was retrospective;
3.
Your conduct as set out in charge 2(d) above was dishonest, in that you sought to create a false impression in Patient A’s medical notes that you had successfully measured her oxygen saturations as being 95% at 22:00, when you had not.”

12.

Before the CCC, Ms Jerry denied all three charges. However, the CCC found the charges proved and held that Ms Jerry had been guilty of serious misconduct. The CCC proceeded to find that Ms Jerry’s fitness to practise as a registered nurse was impaired and that the appropriate sanction against her was to be struck from the Register.

13.

The FPC heard Ms Jerry’s application for reinstatement to the register on 9 and 10 January 2025, in accordance with Art 33 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (hereafter “the 2001 Order”). The reasons give by the FPC for declining to reinstate her to the Register can be summarised as follows:

The FPC noted that the substantive decision of the CCC to strike Ms Jerry from the Register indicated that the CCC had been satisfied that Ms Jerry had demonstrated no remorse or insight whatsoever and had aggravated matters by attempting to apportion blame to two former colleagues by making serious and meritless allegations against them on two occasions during the substantive hearing.

ii)

The FPC noted that the CCC had concluded that it could not be satisfied that the issues underlying its findings of dishonesty had been recognised by Ms Jerry or that Ms Jerry had addressed her serious clinical failings and dishonesty and that there remained a significant risk of repetition of such conduct.

iii)

The FPC noted that, in determining the question of sanction, the CCC had been satisfied that there was no evidence that Ms Jerry had any insight into her misconduct or the seriousness of her misconduct, had demonstrated no remorse, had failed to acknowledge the seriousness of her misconduct, had given no undertaking before the CCC not to repeat it, had failed to recognise the potential impact of her shortcomings on Patient A, that there were material concerns about Ms Jerry’s probity, honesty and trustworthiness and that Ms Jerry presented a serious and ongoing risk of repeating her behaviour.

iv)

The FPC concluded that, having heard Ms Jerry’s oral evidence under affirmation, Ms Jerry failed to acknowledge the fact of her dishonesty, continued to blame others and was unable sufficiently to demonstrate a link between her asserted reflection on what had happened and her actions and inaction at the time.

The FPC concluded that, when asked about the risk of harm, Ms Jerry failed to consider the impact that her conduct had had on her colleagues, patients or the patients’ relatives.

vi)

The FPC found that, in considering the period since she had been struck off, Ms Jerry’s record of employment was muddled and incomplete to the extent that, even during her oral evidence, she was unable to clarify specific roles and responsibilities in different organisations and her periods of employment. The FPC noted the absence of objective evidence from Ms Jerry’s employment and of testimonials from her employers or people she was responsible for caring for as a Healthcare Assistant.

vii)

In considering whether Ms Jerry had demonstrated strengthened practice, the FPC bore in mind that she had completed mandatory training as part of her role as a Healthcare Assistant but was not satisfied that training related directly to Ms Jerry’s misconduct and the proven incidence of dishonesty. The FPC noted that Ms Jerry had produced no objective evidence to support her assertion that she took observations and charted accurately in her current role. Whilst Ms Jerry made reference to the NMC’s Code of Practice, the FPC found that she was unable to explain how this connected to the proved charges.

viii)

The FPC found that Ms Jerry was not able to demonstrate sufficiently having kept up to date with developments in the profession or how she had planned how she would be able to return to nursing after such a significant absence from the Register.

ix)

The FPC concluded that Ms Jerry had not demonstrated that she could practise safely as a nurse at the current time given her inability to demonstrate full insight into, or to take responsibility for, the incidents which had led to her being struck off the Register.

14.

In determining in the foregoing context that it was not appropriate that Ms Jerry’s registration be restored and rejecting her application, the FPC concluded as follows:

“The panel considered that your past misconduct which included dishonesty was serious. Your actions placed patients at risk of harm and undermined public confidence in the nursing profession. When faced with questions from the panel, your responses were frequently generic, rather than focused on the specific issues that needed to be addressed. Given the absence of full insight into your misconduct, particularly the dishonesty, lack of strength in practice, and lack of objective evidence from employers to support a potential return to the nursing profession, the panel was not satisfied that you are a fit and proper to return to the register at the current time and to do so would undermine confidence in the nursing profession.”