Daniel Brown and Louise Hartley successful for senior midwife in major disciplinary case of Richmond v NMC
19th August 2025
3PB's disciplinary barristers Daniel Brown and Louise Hartley, instructed by Laura Hannah of law firm Stephensons, acted for the senior midwife Ms Richmond in the major new test case of Richmond v NMC [2025] EWHC 1828 (Admin). This case is a rare example of the High Court refusing to extend an interim order on the application of the NMC.
An Interim Conditions of Practice Order was imposed on Ms Richmond on 11 January 2024 and reviewed on three occasions. The allegations against Ms Richmond concern allegedly discriminatory remarks, in relation to a transgender colleague, and the use of a religious space at the Trust where Ms Richmond was employed.
The Interim Order was due to expire on 10 July 2025 and the NMC applied to the High Court to extend the Order.
The NMC argued that the remarks allegedly made by Ms Richmond raise a risk that she would treat patients in certain groups differently to others. Rejecting this, the High Court stated there was in fact no evidence she had ever done so in 45 years of practice. Moreover, none of the remarks had been made to a patient or in the context of patient care. The NMC failed to show any substantive risk to patients.
The High Court considered the NMC’s case in relation to whether an Interim Order was ‘otherwise in the public interest’. The reasons of the first panel stated:
an interim order was otherwise in the public interest as a well-informed and reasonable member of the public would be concerned if they were to learn a nurse facing such allegations was allowed to practise without restrictions at this time.
At the most recent review, the panel stated that:
The panel concluded that a member of the general public would be concerned if a midwife in a senior position, who had allegedly made discriminatory remarks, continued to practise unrestricted.
The High Court considered that the panel had repeated the same error identified in NMC v Persand [2023] EWHC 3356 (Admin) where an NMC panel had made similar observations that “an informed member of the public would be concerned if a registered nurse facing such allegations was allowed to practise without restriction whilst an investigation was carried out by the NMC.”
The judgment concluded: “It seems to me, on my reading of the material, that, in fact, what the Council has done is to act in a way which the court in Persand said that it could not do; namely to express a concern that a member of the public would have concerns if allegations such as this did not result in restrictions being imposed on a practitioner. In the case of Persand, such concerns were said to be wholly insufficient…I have considered the public interest but, for the reasons I have just given, that public interest is not such as to require the interim order to continue in this case.”
It appears that the words ‘a member of the public would be concerned’ have become a ‘stock phrase’ used without much elaboration in many NMC decisions. The judgment in this case suggests that some Interim Order decisions using this stock phrase may be vulnerable to challenge in the High Court, particularly where there is no clear evidence of a risk of harm to patients.
Daniel and Louise, who are both part of 3PB's specialist Professional Disciplinary team, will be giving a briefing of this case via webinar. Details of this will follow. Do email [email protected] if you would like to attend and we will register you and send you the link.
If you wish to instruct or contact Daniel or Louise in regards to this case please contact Russell Porter via email [email protected] or via telephone 01865 793 736.