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

The court is concerned with an appeal by Ms Bernadette Jerry, who represents herself, challenging the decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee (hereafter “the FPC”) of the Midwifery and Nursing Council (hereafter “the NMC”) dated 9 January 2025 and 10 January 2025 declining to reinstate her to the Nursing Register (hereafter “the Register), Ms Jerry having been struck from the Register in 2015. The NMC is represented by Ms Simran Kaur Ghotra of Counsel.

At the outset of the appeal hearing, Ms Jerry made an application to adjourn the proceedings. The NMC was on notice of that application by reason of photographs of a partially completed Form N244 that Ms Jerry had taken and which had been uploaded to the DUC. Ms Jerry proceeded to make clear and reasoned oral submissions in support of her application to adjourn the appeal hearing.

For reasons set out in a separate ex tempore judgment, I refused the application for an adjournment. In summary:

In these circumstances, and taking account of the ability of the court to guide a litigant in person in the proper presentation of their case in appeals of this nature (as recently reiterated in Tsolo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 2324 at [44]) and the need to deal with proceedings justly at proportionate costs pursuant to the overriding objective in CPR r1.1(1), I declined an adjournment.

Having indicated to Ms Jerry that the application to adjourn was refused and that the appeal hearing would proceed, and upon being asked for her oral submissions, Ms Jerry asserted that she was too ill to proceed with the hearing and wished to see a doctor. Prior to that point, there had been no mention by Ms Jerry, either explicitly or otherwise, that she was unwell. Indeed, as I have set out, Ms Jerry had attended court for the hearing and proceeded to make clear, itemised and structured submissions in support of her application for an adjournment. It was only when the court refused her adjournment application that Ms Jerry claimed that she was too ill to proceed. The court having risen to allow Ms Jerry some time, when the hearing recommenced she continued to assert she was unable to proceed albeit that, after the court expressed scepticism in light of the timing of her contended for ill health, her claim of illness evolved into a claim that she was “too stressed to function”. In the circumstances, I directed the attendance of the First Aid Officer.

Following the attendance of the First Aid Officer, who reported that Ms Jerry was not presenting as ill but was simply stating that she needed to see a doctor, I informed Ms Jerry that, in light of her ability to attend court and to make structured submissions in support of her application for an adjournment, in circumstances where her assertion of being too ill to participate in the hearing had only arisen after the court refused her application for an adjournment, and where she had seen the First Aid Officer who identified no concerns, I considered her fit to continue with the hearing. I further informed Ms Jerry that I would rise for the short adjournment, during which time she could obtain refreshment and marshal her arguments, and would hear her oral submissions at 2.00pm. I further made clear to Ms Jerry that, having refused her application to adjourn and in circumstances where I considered her fit to continue with the hearing, if she declined the opportunity to make oral submissions I would treat her extensive written submissions as being the submissions in support of her grounds of appeal.

Following the short adjournment, and as I had explained to Ms Jerry prior to rising, I again indicated that I considered her fit to continue and gave to her an opportunity to make oral submissions in support of her grounds of appeal. Ms Jerry again declined to do so, indicating that she considered her “fundamental rights” were being breached by the court’s refusal to adjourn the hearing and that “psychological shock” was preventing her from functioning. Having given a final opportunity to Ms Jerry to make oral submissions and receiving the same response, I indicated that, as previously stated, I would treat Ms Jerry’s comprehensive Skeleton Argument as her submissions in support of her grounds of appeal and proceeded to hear submissions in reply from Ms Ghotra on behalf of the respondent. Following Ms Ghotra’s concise and well directed oral submissions, I gave Ms Jerry the opportunity to exercise her right of reply. She again declined to make oral submissions, again asserting that she was in “psychological shock” and unable to participate.

In the foregoing circumstances, in deciding Ms Jerry’s appeal I have had the benefit of her extensive written submissions to the court, together with the documents on which those written submissions are based, including the transcript of the hearing before the FPC and the decision of the FPC. I have also had the benefit of a comprehensive Skeleton Argument and oral submissions from Ms Ghotra on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the matters set out above, I reserved judgment on Ms Jerry’s appeal and now set out my decision and the reasons for it.