Is being erased by your regulator really the end of the road? We don’t believe so!
Whether you’ve faced erasure by the General Chiropractic Council, General Medical Council, General Optical Council, General Osteopathic Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, or Social Work England, we firmly believe that your removal from the register doesn’t have to mark the end of the road.
If a healthcare professional has been removed or struck off by the Fitness to Practise Panel, they may seek restoration. To regain registration, it is imperative to convince the regulator of one’s fitness to practise, defined as possessing the skills, knowledge, health, and character required for safe and effective job performance.
The regulator’s code outlines the professional standards for healthcare professionals, including midwives and nursing associates, in the UK. Failure to meet these standards can lead to investigation and potential removal from the register. Applying for restoration after being struck off involves demonstrating, on a balance of probability, that the healthcare professional is now fit and proper for reinstatement.
“Fitness to practise” is assessed in the present, considering the healthcare professional’s current abilities rather than past incidents. Remediation steps taken since the problematic time are crucial in demonstrating fitness to practise at the time of the restoration application.
A healthcare professional can only apply for restoration five years after the striking-off order or dismissal of an appeal to the High Court. The application is a complex process, and seeking clear, specialist advice is essential. The fitness to practise committee panel, which hears restoration applications, will inquire about the applicant’s activities since being struck off, their perspective on past incidents, measures taken to prevent recurrence, future, and professional development efforts.
During the restoration hearing, it is essential to understand that the panel is bound by the findings of the original panel and cannot challenge them. The panel may refuse the application, grant it with conditions, or say that you can return to the register.
Representation is crucial in restoration hearings, but it is equally important to recognise restoration as a process that requires time and thorough evidence gathering. Seeking expert legal advice early in the process is recommended to ensure the best possible outcome. Insight and remediation carry significant weight, and evidence of understanding and addressing past issues is essential.
Let’s take a closer look at the law.
The leading case referred to in restoration application is the case of General Medical Council v Chandra [2018] EWCA Civ 1898; [2019] 1 WLR 1140 [Auth:140-158] emphasised that a restoration panel should have regard to the relevant over-arching objective of the regulator (at [70] and then [90]-[93], per King LJ):
…[T]he tribunal must consider the matters in the guidelines including the circumstances which led to the erasure. They must make findings as to what extent the applicant has shown remorse and insight and remediated him/herself and satisfy themselves that he or she is no longer a risk. The passage of time (here now twelve years) will be important. The MPT must then stand back and have proper regard to the over-arching objective. As Mrs Justice Cox put it in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) , a sanctions case, but which applies equally to a restoration case:
“101 The Committee should therefore have asked themselves not only whether the Registrant continued to present a risk to members of the public, but whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the Registrant and in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment of fitness to practise were not made in the circumstances of this case. In my judgment, in failing to have regard to these issues and to ask themselves the right questions, the Committee were in error.”
…The MPT did not address, or address adequately, the issue of whether public confidence and professional standards would be damaged by restoring the applicant to the register, an applicant who had fundamentally fallen short of the necessary standards of probity and good conduct, by his sexual misconduct and dishonesty, albeit many years ago.
…In my judgment, the Tribunal applied the wrong test. Had they been aware of and considered Bolton, they would have approached the matter as advanced by Ms Grey; they would first have considered with care all the evidence of remediation against the backdrop of the matters which had led to erasure and made findings in that respect. Having made positive findings in this respect, they would then have metaphorically stepped back and balanced those findings against each of the three limbs of the over-arching objective. Only by doing so could they satisfy themselves that, when considering the case overall, including the length of time which has now elapsed, the restoration of the applicant would promote and maintain public confidence and proper professional standards so that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the original misconduct, the over-arching objective would be achieved.
In my judgment, such an analysis and demonstration of the appropriate balancing exercise cannot be teased out of the reasons given by the MPT. Those reasons, absent an understanding of the proper approach as set out in Bolton, relied almost exclusively on the issues of remediation and failed properly to understand the central importance of the over-arching objective to their ultimate decision”.
So what is this case really saying?
**Guidelines Examination:** When contemplating restoration, the tribunal must conscientiously review guidelines, focusing on scrutinising the circumstances that prompted the removal of the individual from the professional register.
**Remorse, Insight, and Remediation Assessment:** The tribunal is tasked with evaluating the individual’s demonstration of remorse, acquisition of insight into their actions, and successful remediation efforts. This evaluation requires a thorough examination of the evidence showcasing the individual’s initiatives to address and rectify the issues that led to their removal from the register.
**Time as a Significant Factor:** Recognising the temporal aspect, particularly in cases where a considerable amount of time has passed is crucial in the decision-making process.
**Over-arching Objective Reminder:** The tribunal is prompted to consider the over-arching objective, extending beyond assessing whether the individual still poses a risk to the public. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of the impact on professional standards and public confidence should the individual be restored.
**Legal Precedent Reference (Bolton):** Citing the legal case Bolton, the tribunal is encouraged to adopt a specific approach to decision-making in restoration cases. This approach entails a meticulous consideration of remediation evidence against the backdrop of the circumstances leading to erasure, followed by a balancing act against each facet of the over-arching objective.
Our lawyers at Regulation Resolution boasts a history of successful restoration applications, providing individuals with the opportunity to explore their case achievements and request a FREE case assessment. Contact Us | Regulation Resolution UK