Ibrahim, R (on the application of) v The Nursing and Midwifery Council
[2024] EWHC 2991 (Admin)
Andrei Christian Juchi v The Nursing and Midwifery Council
7 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2825 (Admin)
High Court
A nurse had sex with a patient. He was fired and lost his nursing license. He tried to appeal, saying a mistake was made. The court said the mistake didn't matter because he admitted to having sex with the patient, which is a very serious offense, and so he deserved to lose his license.
Key Facts
- •Andrei Christian Juchi, a registered nurse, was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship with Patient A, a vulnerable adult with PTSD, anxiety, and depression, while she was under his professional care at St Luke's Primary Care Centre.
- •Juchi admitted to the sexual relationship but denied other allegations, including filming a sexual encounter without consent and making inappropriate requests during ECG examinations.
- •A Fitness to Practice Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) found Juchi's fitness to practice impaired and imposed a striking-off order.
- •Juchi appealed, arguing the Panel erred in refusing to reopen the fact-finding stage to admit new Facebook evidence showing Patient A initiated contact, and in refusing further social media evidence during the hearing.
- •Juchi also challenged the striking-off order as disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Appeals to the High Court are not de novo hearings but reviews, giving deference to the professional body's judgment on professional standards and case management.
Cheatle v GMC [2009] EWHC 645, Eunice Ogbonna-Jacob v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1595 (Admin), Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)
The court will only interfere with a sanction decision if it's outside the range of what's reasonable or clearly wrong.
Cheatle v GMC [2009] EWHC 645, R(on the application of Bevan) v GMC [2005] EWHC 174
The power of a statutory tribunal to reopen proceedings to admit new evidence after a fact decision is limited; generally, there's no such power unless it's expressly provided for.
NMC (Fitness to Practice) Rules 2004, Rule 24(9)-(11), Nduka v GMC [2017] EWHC 1396 (Admin), TZ v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1001 (Admin)
Admission of new evidence on appeal is subject to the Ladd v Marshall test (reasonable diligence, probable influence on the result, and apparent credibility).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, Terluk v Berezovsky [2011] EWCA Civ 1534
Credibility assessments should account for memory's unreliability and be tested against objective facts and contemporaneous documents.
Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin), Mubarak v GMC [2008] EWHC 2830 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Panel had no power to reopen the fact-finding stage to admit the new Facebook evidence. Even if it had, the evidence wouldn't have changed the outcome, as the core of the case was Juchi's admitted sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient.
Appeal regarding the case management decision dismissed.
The Panel's decision not to allow further social media evidence was within its case management powers.
Challenge to the striking-off order dismissed.
Given the seriousness of the admitted misconduct (sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient) and the public interest in protecting patients, the sanction was proportionate.
Similar Cases
Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor
[2024] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Mary Cascioli v Nursing and Midwifery Council
[2024] EWHC 1109 (Admin)
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
Doctor Peter Roach v The General Medical Council
[2024] EWHC 1114 (Admin)