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

Fecha: 03-Nov-2025

GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSIONS

15.

The grounds of appeal are set out in Ms Jerry’s Skeleton Argument. A number of the grounds she relies on go to the substantive decision of the CCC in 2015 and the decision of the High Court in 2016 dismissing Ms Jerry’s appeal against the decision of the CCC, rather than to the decision of the FPC in January 2025 refusing to restore Ms Jerry to the Register. (Footnote: ¹) I address this issue below.

16.

With respect to the decision of the FPC in January 2025, whilst her grounds are discursive and somewhat difficult to follow, it is apparent from her Skeleton Argument that Ms Jerry relies on the following ten grounds of appeal with respect to that decision:

The NMC failed to acknowledge to the FPC that it had provided incorrect information to the FPC and the High Court in 2016.

ii)

The NMC failed to inform the FPC that at the appeal hearing before the High Court in 2016 the NMC provided dishonest information to the court by using the patient’s A&E notes instead of the nursing notes and, accordingly, acted dishonestly at the hearing before the FPC.

iii)

The NMC failed to highlight to the FPC that the initial charges were quashed in August 2014.

iv)

The NMC failed to provide the FPC with compelling evidence of the nurses notes, the incident report by Ms Jerry, the original observation chart, and the original recorded telephone conversation of witness CH, rendering the FPC process flawed and denying Ms Jerry a fair hearing.

The NMC provided false, incorrect, subjective and misleading information at the hearing on 9 and 10 January 2025 in relation to the charges.

vi)

The NMC put before the FPC no evidence to “validate” the findings made by the CCC.

vii)

The FPC was wrong to refuse to reinstate Ms Jerry to the register in circumstances where the FPC failed to follow a principled process in failing to ensure that the NMC provided the relevant factual evidence to back the findings made by the CCC.

viii)

New evidence was available which impacted on the appropriateness of the original order.

ix)

The FPC failed to acknowledge that Ms Jerry had achieved the “necessary hours” for restoration as evidenced by her certificates of training and her engagement in “many hours of learning”.

The FPC erred in deciding that Ms Jerry had not taken full responsibility in respect of her dishonesty because dishonesty had not been proved against her.

17.

As I have noted, in addition to these matters, Ms Jerry’s grounds of appeal assert a number of matters that she contends undermine the decision of the CCC in 2015 to strike her from the register, and the decision of the High Court in 2016 to dismiss her appeal against the decision of the CCC. In so far as Ms Jerry seeks to rely on these matters, I accept the submission of Ms Ghotra that these grounds represent an attempt to re-litigate the findings made at the substantive hearing in May and August 2015, they having already been the subject of unsuccessful appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

18.

As Ms Ghotra points out, no application has been made by Ms Jerry pursuant to CPR r.52.30 for permission to re-open the High Court appeal and to adduce the fresh evidence. Whilst Ms Jerry claimed at this hearing to have discovered an “incident report” by way of new evidence, Ms Jerry also stated she had accidently left that crucial, exonerating documentary evidence at home. In these circumstances, I have confined my consideration of Ms Jerry’s appeal to the grounds of appeal itemised above.

19.

With respect to Ms Jerry’s submissions set out in her Skeleton Argument, the majority of her highly detailed written submissions also seek to demonstrate that the original decision to strike her from the Register, and the decision of the High Court to refuse her appeal, were flawed (and reflect closely the submissions made to the High Court in 2016).

20.

Within this context, with respect to the decision of the FPC in January 2025, which is the subject of this appeal, Ms Jerry’s central submission is that the decision of the FPC was flawed because the FPC was unaware that the decision of the CCC was, in Ms Jerry’s submission, invalid by reason of unfairness and abuse of process and should have been overturned on appeal.

21.

Ms Jerry’s assertion of unfairness and abuse of process before the CCC centres primarily on what Ms Jerry submits was a failure by NMC to place before the CCC evidence (in the form of contended for nurses notes, the incident report by Ms Jerry, the original observation chart, the original recorded telephone conversation of witness CH and evidence of the absence of an investigation by the hospital) that would have exonerated her. In addition, within her Skeleton Argument, Ms Jerry undertakes a point by point demolition of each of the three charges found proved by the CCC in an effort to refute the CCC’s findings, again submitting that this undermines the validity of the decision of the FPC not to reinstate her.

22.

In response, Ms Ghotra submits on behalf of the Respondent that the FPC was concerned in January 2025 not with correctness of the decision of the CCC in 2015, which stood in light of the dismissal of Ms Jerry’s appeal in 2016, but solely with question of whether, pursuant to Art 33(5) Nursing and Midwifery Order 2011, Ms Jerry satisfied the requirements for reinstatement on the register. Ms Ghotra submits that, on the basis of the information the Fitness to Practise Panel had before it, the FPC was plainly entitled to find that it was not appropriate for Ms Jerry’s registration to be restored.