Nursing and Midwifery Council Investigating Committee Fraudulent/Incorrect Entry Hearing 25 September 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC PIN: Mr Harry Chijioke Lambert 05G0368E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub Part 1 Mental Health Nurse - June 2008 Area of Registered Address: Type of Case: Panel Members: Legal Assessor: Panel Secretary: Registrant: Nursing and Midwifery Council: Findings: Outcome: Interim order: England Fraudulent/Incorrect Entry Mr Robert Owen (Chair, Lay member) Mrs Julie Wainwright (Registrant member) Mrs Nina Wrightson (Lay member) Mr William Hoskins Miss Tereka Bowes Present and not represented Represented by Mrs Laura Gouldthorpe, Case Presenter Charge 1 proved by admission, Charge 2 found proved Fraudulent entry. The panel directs the Registrar to remove Mr Lambert s entry on the register in accordance with Article 26(7) of the Order Interim Suspension Order- 18 months 1
Charge: 1. That you, on or around 15 May 2014 signed a Notification of Practice Form which you then submitted to the NMC, indicating that you had not received a police charge, caution or conviction since 1 August 2004 other than a protected caution or conviction, when you had been cautioned on 14 April 2014. 2. Your actions, in charge 1, above, were intended to conceal that you had received a caution. AND thereby, an entry on the register of the Nursing and Midwifery Council in the name of Harry Chijioke Lambert (PIN 05G0368E) was fraudulently procured or incorrectly made. Background: You joined the NMC s register in June 2008 as a Mental Health Nurse. Your registration was due to expire on 30 June 2014. A periodic renewal pack was sent to you which included a Notification of Practice Form and criminal conviction guidelines. On 15 May 2014 you signed the Notification of Practice Form. In that form you answered a question have you received a police charge, caution or conviction since August 2004, other than a protected caution and conviction? by ticking the no box. [PRIVATE]. You accompanied the police officers to the police station and subsequently, on 14 April 2014, accepted a caution in respect of the allegation which was of assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 2
Decision on the finding on facts and reasons In reaching its decisions on the facts, the panel considered all the evidence adduced in this case together with the submissions made by Ms Gouldthorpe, on behalf of the NMC and those made by you. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel was provided with a bundle of documents which included a witness statement from Mr 1 explaining the NMC s processes in relation to periodic renewal of registration. The bundle of documents also included the Notification of Practice Form, documentation relating to the police Caution and a DBS certificate dated 10 April 2017. The panel was also provided with a police case summary which was in the following terms, [PRIVATE]. The panel heard oral evidence from you under oath. You told the panel that you accepted that you had received a Caution and had ticked the no box in the Notification of Practice Form. You denied that in so doing you had intended to conceal the fact that you had received a caution. You said that you had not realised that you had received a caution. You had voluntarily accompanied the police officers to the police station without being arrested and had remained there overnight until a duty solicitor was available to assist you. You recalled that the police officer had told you before being interviewed that anything you said could be used in evidence but you did not recall anything about the police caution. You accepted that the record of Caution included your signature and also included the following: I have read/have had read to me the contents of this form and understand that my signature confirms that I understand the consequences of the simple caution being administered to me. I agree to accept a simple caution for the offence (s) shown above. The record of caution is dated 14 April 2014. 3
In her submissions Ms Gouldthorpe on behalf of the NMC referred the panel to the contemporaneous documentation. She emphasised that the account given by you was inconsistent with that documentation and invited the panel to conclude that you must have been aware that you had received a caution. In your submissions you said that there was no reason for you not to disclose this caution and suggested that the signature on the record of caution may have been later added electronically by the police. You pointed out that you had not deleted one of the alternatives suggesting that you had either read the document or had it read to you and you submitted that it was therefore likely that the document had not been brought to your attention. The panel went on to consider whether the entry on the NMC register was made fraudulently and/or incorrectly. The panel was aware that the burden of proof rests on the NMC, and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. The panel made the following findings in relation to the charge(s) Charge 1: 1. That you, on or around 15 May 2014 signed a Notification of Practice Form which you then submitted to the NMC, indicating that you had not received a police charge, caution or conviction since 1 August 2004 other than a protected caution or conviction, when you had been cautioned on 14 April 2014. This charge was proved by admission. Charge 2: 2. Your actions, in charge 1, above, were intended to conceal that you had received a caution. This charge is found proved. 4
The panel gave careful consideration to your evidence. It bore in mind that the burden of proving this allegation lay upon the NMC and that the allegation is a serious one. It therefore required cogent evidence to support it. The panel found your account to be implausible. The contemporaneous documentation indicated clearly that a caution had been administered to you. Your signature appeared below a document which explained the effect of the caution. The panel rejected the suggestion that your signature might have been interposed afterwards by the police. The panel noted that you had signed the Notification of Practice Form one month after you had received the caution. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities and in the light of the contemporaneous documentation that you realised that you had received a caution on the 14 April 2014 and that in signing the Notification of Practice Form as you did, you intended to conceal that you had received a caution. Accordingly the panel finds that an entry on the NMC s register in the name of the Harry Chijioke Lambert was fraudulently procured. 5
Decision on direction Having determined that you had incorrectly and fraudulently procured an entry on the NMC s register, the panel went on to decide what direction, if any, to make under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001) (the Order). Article 26(7) of the Order states:..if the Investigating Committee is satisfied that an entry in the register has been fraudulently procured or incorrectly made, it may make an order that the Registrar remove or amend the entry and shall notify the person concerned of his right of appeal under article 38. Ms Gouldthorpe submitted that by failing to declare your caution, you had deprived the registrar of the opportunity to assess whether you are capable of safe and effect practice. She further submitted that there was a public interest in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the register and the wider profession as a whole. Ms Gouldthorpe reminded the panel of its powers in this case and invited the panel to direct the Registrar to remove your entry from the register. She informed the panel that this would mean that, were you to apply for re-entry to the register, the Registrar would have the opportunity to have regard to the nature and circumstances of his fraudulent entry when considering whether to allow readmission. Ms Gouldthorpe submitted that to amend the register or to take no action would be inappropriate in this case. You told the panel that you were very sorry that the panel thought that you had deliberately concealed information from the NMC. You said that your conscience was clear and that you had won awards as a nurse. You feared that you would lose a job that you love. The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel considered that to take no action in this case would be inappropriate. Furthermore, this matter could not appropriately be dealt with by amendment of the register, 6
as the errors in your application were neither trivial nor immaterial, and did not result from an administrative mistake. In all the circumstances, the panel therefore decided that the only appropriate order is to direct the Registrar to remove your entry from the register. You will be notified of the panel s decision in writing. You have the right to appeal the decision under Article 38 of the Order. This order cannot take effect until the end of the appeal period (28 days from the date of the notice of the decision) or if an appeal is made, before the appeal has been concluded. 7
Decision on Interim Order: Having directed that the Registrar remove your entry from the register, the panel then considered whether an interim order was required under Article 26(11) of the Order, in relation to the appeal period. The panel heard and accepted the legal assessor s advice. Ms Gouldthorpe made an application for the imposition of an interim suspension order for 18 months, in order to cover the period within which an appeal might be made and the duration of any period before any appeal is heard. In light of the panel s previous findings, Ms Gouldthorpe submitted that an order was necessary for the protection of the public and is also otherwise in the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the register. She submitted that, with the panel having directed that your entry on the register be removed, it follows that an interim suspension order is necessary both on public protection grounds and is in the public interest. You told the panel that you will not be appealing its decision as you do not believe that you have done anything wrong. You reminded the panel that you love your job and would like to return to work. In addressing the matter of public interest, you informed the panel that you have practised over ten years without any harm to patients. You also informed the panel that you would be the subject of financial hardship should you be suspended from work. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. In reaching its decision on whether to impose an interim order, the panel had regard to the reasons set out in its decision on the facts and its decision to direct the Registrar to remove your entry from the Register. It also had regard to the NMC s published Guidance on Fraudulent and incorrect entry cases. It noted that the imposition of an interim order is not an automatic outcome but is a matter for the panel s discretion in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the register. It also had regard to Article 31 of the Order and the NMC s Guidance on interim orders. 8
The panel first considered whether to impose an interim conditions of practice order. It determined that an interim conditions of practice order was not workable or appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the panel determined that an interim suspension order was in the public interest to protect the reputation of the profession and the NMC as its regulator. Any other course would be inconsistent with the panel s substantive determination. The period of this order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined. If no appeal is made then the interim order will lapse upon the removal of your entry in the register 28 days after you are sent the decision of this hearing in writing. That concludes this determination. 9