Investigating Committee Fraudulent Entry Hearing 20 May 2016 NMC, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE

Transcription

1 Investigating Committee Fraudulent Entry Hearing 20 May 2016 NMC, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: Margaret Molly Goodman PIN: 75Y2209E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub part 1 Mental Health Nurse Level 1 Area of registered address: England Type of Case: Fraudulent and Incorrect Entry Panel members: Ian Comfort (Chair, Lay member) Andrew Skelton (Registrant member) Moriam Barlett (Lay member) Legal Assessor: Gelaga King Panel Secretary: NMC: Registrant: Charges found proved: Outcome: Interim Order: Kim Nyawira Represented by Richard Reid, NMC Regulatory Legal Team. Not present and not represented ALL The panel decided that the entry was made fraudulently and incorrectly and that there be an order that the Registrar remove the entry from the register Interim Suspension Order 18 months Page 1 of 16

2 Service of notice of hearing: The panel was informed at the start of this hearing that Mrs Goodman was not in attendance. The panel was informed that the Nursing and Midwifery Council ( NMC ) had made several attempts to send letters to Mrs Goodman s address on the register. However, these letters had been returned to the NMC. On 12 October 2014, Mrs Goodman informed the NMC of a contact address in Zimbabwe. The heard that notice of this hearing was sent to that address on 12 April 2016 by international recorded delivery to the Post Office Box address provided by her. The panel also had regard to a Track and Trace which confirmed delivery to the local delivery office. In the light of the information available, the panel was satisfied that notice had been served in compliance and accordance with Rules 5 and 34 of The Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 ( the Rules ). Proceeding in the absence: The panel next considered whether to proceed in the absence of Mrs Goodman. The panel heard the submissions made by Mr Reid on behalf of the NMC. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel was mindful that this was a discretion that must be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The panel was informed that Mrs Goodman has not engaged with the NMC throughout this matter. The NMC has made several efforts to engage with Mrs Goodman through both and letters to both her registered address and her last known address but no response has been received. Page 2 of 16

3 The panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the NMC and that Mrs Goodman had been sent notice of today s hearing. The panel concluded that she was or ought to be aware of today s hearing and that she has chosen to voluntarily absent herself. The panel had no reason to believe that an adjournment would serve any useful purpose or result in Mrs Goodman s attendance at a later date. Having weighed the interests of Mrs Goodman with those of the NMC and the public interest in an expeditious disposal of this hearing, the panel decided to proceed in the absence of Mrs Goodman. Details of Charge: 1. On 24 April 1977, an entry was made on the register held by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, which subsequently became an entry on the Nursing and Midwifery Council with PIN 75J0042E, in the name of Ms 1, date of birth of [PRIVATE]; 2. In or around September 1997, the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to an entry with PIN 75Y2209E; 3. On an unknown date before April 2002, the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to an entry in the name of Ms 2, with a date of birth of [PRIVATE]; 4. In or around June 2001: 4.1. an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a spouse was submitted to the Home Office in the name of Ms 3, also known as Ms 4, date of birth [PRIVATE]; 4.2. in the application set out at 4.1 above, a marriage certificate was supplied showing the marriage of Ms 3 to Mr 5 on [PRIVATE]; Page 3 of 16

4 5. In 2002: 5.1. You submitted a personal details update form, dated 1 September 2002, in the name of Ms 6, with date of birth [PRIVATE]; 5.2. On 7 October 2002 the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to the name of Ms 6, date of birth [PRIVATE]; 6. In 2004: 6.1. You submitted a personal details update form, dated 15 March 2004, in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman, with date of birth [PRIVATE]; 6.2. On 20 April 2004 the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman, with date of birth [PRIVATE]; 7. You submitted notification of practise forms to renew your registration: 7.1. Dated 4 September 2002 in the name of Ms 4; 7.2. Dated 21 September 2005 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.3. Dated 16 September 2008 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.4. Dated 27 September 2011 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.5. Dated 1 September 2014 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 8. The married name of Goodman relates to the marriage of Ms 3, date of birth [PRIVATE], as set out in charge 4 above, and not to Ms 1, date of birth [PRIVATE]; 9. When submitting the documents set out in charges 5, 6 and 7 above: 9.1. You knew that the name of Ms 6 and/or Margaret Molly Goodman you provided did not relate to Ms 1 as set out in charge 8; Page 4 of 16

5 9.2. In respect of charges 5 and 6 above, you deliberately intended to procure an amendment to the entry referred to at 1 above which was incorrect; 9.3. In respect of charge 7 above, you deliberately intended to procure an entry on the register which was incorrect; And thereby, the entry on subpart 1 of the register of the Nursing and Midwifery Council in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman, PIN 75Y2209E, was incorrectly made or fraudulently procured. Decision on Application under Rule 31: Mr Reid on behalf of the NMC made an application to admit the witness statements of the following witnesses under Rule 31 (1) of the Nursing and Midwifery (Fitness to Practise) Order 2004: Mr 7, NMC UK Registrations Advisor Ms 8, Proprietor, Firs Nursing Home Ms 9, Executive Officer, Home Office Mr Reid submitted that evidence of these witnesses was directly relevant to the charges and related to whether Mrs Goodman s entry to the register was fraudulent as alleged. In respect of fairness, Mr Reid submitted the evidence of these witnesses is drawn directly from documentary records and would be a straightforward presentation of the factual records held by each witness in the course of their roles. He further submitted that Mrs Goodman had been provided with the opportunity to challenge anything she might dispute but she had not done so. For these reasons, Mr Reid submitted that it was fair for the panel to admit the hearsay evidence and then attach such weight as it considers appropriate. The panel considered the submissions made by Mr Reid on behalf of the NMC and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. Rule 31 states: Page 5 of 16

6 31. (1) Upon receiving the advice of the legal assessor, and subject only to the requirements of relevance and fairness, a Practice Committee considering an allegation may admit oral, documentary or other evidence, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in civil proceedings. The panel first considered whether this evidence is relevant. The panel accepted that the evidence of these witnesses was directly relevant to the charges. It then went on to consider whether it would therefore be fair to admit the evidence. The panel determined that there were strong procedural safeguards and sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties which would result in the admission of the written statements of these witnesses. It bore in mind that as the burden of proof rests on the NMC, the facts will only be proved if the panel is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that it was more likely than not that the matters alleged occurred. Additionally, the panel was satisfied that it could attach the appropriate weight to the evidence and conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of this evidence. It was of the view that admitting this evidence would not prejudice its own reasoning and decision making on the matter before it. For these reasons, the panel concluded that it would be fair to admit the witness statements of Mr 7, Ms 8 and Ms 9 into evidence and the panel ordered it accordingly. Decision on Facts: In reaching its decision the panel considered all the evidence before it, together with the submissions from Mr Reid, on behalf of the NMC. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. Page 6 of 16

7 The background to these charges is as follows: At the time of the allegations, Mrs Goodman was employed at the Firs Nursing Home as a staff nurse. She had been working at the Home from It is alleged that, in September 2014, the Home Manager noticed that Mrs Goodman s date of birth on her CRB did not match the date of birth for her PIN on the NMC register. When the Home Manager checked Mrs Goodman s personnel folder, he found that her documentation was not complete, in that a copy of a passport page showing indefinite leave to remain was on file. However the corresponding photo page was not on file raising concerns that the stamped page could belong to any Zimbabwean national. In order to investigate the discrepancy and ensure that all staff records were up to date the Home Manager requested that all staff members bring their passports in to work when they were next on shift. However, Mrs Goodman telephoned to say that her mother, who was abroad, was seriously ill and she was leaving the country to look after her. She stated that she would not return to work and did not provide a copy of her passport. The Home Manager made a referral to the NMC on 24 September 2014 raising concerns as to whether Mrs Goodman had been working in the UK illegally. Ms 1 was admitted to the NMC register on 24 April The panel had regard to three references provided as part of Ms 1 s re-admission application in 1996 suggesting that Ms 1 worked in the United Kingdom from 1977 to The panel noted that in a statement from an Executive officer at the Home office, it is confirmed that on 8 March 1997, Ms 1, a Zimbabwean national [PRIVATE], was denied entry into the United Kingdom. No subsequent application was made by Ms 1 to reenter the United Kingdom. On 1 September 1997, Ms 3, a Zimbabwean national (date of birth [PRIVATE]) arrived in the UK and was granted Leave to Enter the UK as a visitor for 6 months. On Page 7 of 16

8 [PRIVATE], Ms 3 married Mr 5 and adopted his surname. On 29 March 1998, the Home office received an application from Ms 3 for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of Mr 5. Ms 4 was granted indefinite leave to remain on 25 June The charges allege that a number of changes were made by the registrant to her name and personal details, between 2002 and 2011, in an attempt to incorrectly and/or fraudulently enter the register. These are as follows: On an unknown date before April 2002, the entry made on 1977 was amended to an entry in the name of Ms 2 with a date of birth [PRIVATE],. On 30 May 2002, the registrant contacted the NMC requesting to change her married name to reflect the changes in [her] personal circumstances. At the time, there was no NMC requirement for a copy of her marriage certificate to be submitted or any supporting evidence to be provided. The registrant was simply required to submit a Personal Details Update form, which she did on 1 September The name was changed on the NMC WISER system to Ms 6 on 7 October On 1 April 2004, Mrs Goodman submitted a further Personal Details Update form dated 15 March 2004 requesting that her middle name Molly be included in her details. Her name was changed to Margaret Molly Goodman on 20 April It is alleged that the registrant submitted a number of notification of practise forms to renew her registration between 2002 and 2014 in the married name of Goodman which relates to the marriage of Ms 3 (date of birth [PRIVATE]) and not to Ms 1 [PRIVATE]. It is also alleged that when she submitted the notifications of practice forms which are the subject of charge 7, the registrant knew that the name Ms 6 and Margaret Molly Goodman did not relate to Ms 1. It is therefore alleged that the registrant deliberately intended to procure an entry on the register which was incorrect by her actions since 2002 and that the entry on subpart 1 of the register of the NMC in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman PIN 75Y2209E was incorrectly made or fraudulently procured. Page 8 of 16

9 Mrs Goodman has not engaged with the NMC since this date and has not responded to the allegations relating to her name changes and identity. The panel was also provided with the witness statement of the following witnesses and their associated exhibits: Mr 7, NMC UK Registrations Advisor Ms 8, Proprietor, Firs Nursing Home Ms 9, Executive Officer, Home Office Charge 1 On 24 April 1977, an entry was made on the register held by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, which subsequently became an entry on the Nursing and Midwifery Council with PIN 75J0042E, in the name of Ms 1, date of birth of [PRIVATE],; This charge is found proved The panel had regard to the statement of Mr 7, UK Registration Advisor at the NMC. In it, he explained that his role is to ensure that applicants satisfy requirements for registration, process readmission applications and request replacement documents which necessitates the use of the NMC s Registration database, WISER. He explained that WISER went live on 1 April 2002 as the NMC s registration database and as such only holds documentation pertaining to a registrant s registration dated after 1 April Information prior to this date is held on Microfilm reels. Mr 7 confirmed that, according the WISER database, on 24 April 1977, an entry was made on the register in the manner detailed in the charge above. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Mr 7 in respect of this charge and therefore found this charge proved. Charge 2 Page 9 of 16

10 In or around September 1997, the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to an entry with PIN 75Y2209E; This charge is found proved Mr 7 stated that according to the WISER system, in or around September 1997, the entry on the register at Charge 1 above was amended to an entry with PIN 75Y2209E from 75J0042E. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Mr 7 in respect of this charge and therefore found this charge proved. Charge 3 On an unknown date before April 2002, the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to an entry in the name of Ms 2, with a date of birth [PRIVATE], This charge is found proved Mr 7 stated that according to the WISER system, on an unknown date before April 2002, the entry on the register was amended from Ms 1 to Ms 2. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Mr 7 in respect of this charge and therefore found this charge proved. Charge 4 In or around June 2001: 4.1. an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a spouse was submitted to the Home Office in the name of Ms 3, also known as Ms 4, date of birth [PRIVATE]; 4.2. in the application set out at 4.1 above, a marriage certificate was supplied showing the marriage of Ms 3 to Mr 5 on [PRIVATE]; Page 10 of 16

11 These charges are found proved The panel had regard to the witness statement of Ms 3, Executive officer at the Home Office confirming that the details contained within charges 4.1 and 4.2 matched the UK Home Office records. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Ms 9 in respect of this charge and therefore found charges 4.1 and 4.2 proved. Charge 5 In 2002: 5.1. You submitted a personal details update form, dated 1 September 2002, in the name of Ms 6, with date of birth [PRIVATE],; 5.2. On 7 October 2002 the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to the name of Ms 6 date of birth [PRIVATE],; These charges are found proved The panel had regard to the Personal details update form dated 1 September 2002 which contained the name Ms 6 [PRIVATE]. It also took into account the statement of Mr 7 who confirmed that, according to the WISER database, the entry on the register, Ms 2, was amended to the name of Ms 6, date of birth [PRIVATE]. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Mr 7 in respect of this charge and therefore found both charges 5.1 and 5.2 proved. Charge 6 In 2004: 6.1. You submitted a personal details update form, dated 15 March 2004, in the name of Mrs Margaret Molly Goodman, with date of birth [PRIVATE], Page 11 of 16

12 6.2. On 20 April 2004 the entry on the register at charge 1 above was amended to in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman, with date of birth [PRIVATE],; These charges are found proved The panel had regard to the personal details update form dated 15 March 2004 which contained the name Mrs Margaret Molly Goodman with a date of birth [PRIVATE],. It also took into account the statement of Mr 1 who confirmed that, according to the WISER database, the entry on the register was amended to the name of Margaret Molly Goodman, date of birth [PRIVATE],. The panel accepted the factual evidence of Mr 7 in respect of this charge and therefore found this charge proved. Charge 7 7. You submitted notification of practise forms to renew your registration: 7.1. Dated 4 September 2002 in the name of Ms 6; 7.2. Dated 21 September 2005 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.3. Dated 16 September 2008 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.4. Dated 27 September 2011 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; 7.5. Dated 1 September 2014 in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman; These charges are found proved The panel had regard to each of the notice of practice forms detailed above. The panel therefore found these charges proved. Charge 8 The married name of Goodman relates to the marriage of Ms 3, date of birth [PRIVATE], as set out in charge 4 above, and not to Ms 1, [PRIVATE], This charges is found proved Page 12 of 16

13 The panel noted that, according to the Home Office Records, Ms 1 was denied entry into the UK in 1997 and did not subsequently return. The panel had regard to a marriage certificate dated [PRIVATE] which states that the married name of Goodman relates to Ms 3, date of birth [PRIVATE]. The panel was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, this charge is proved. Charge 9 When submitting the documents set out in charges 5, 6 and 7 above: 9.1. You knew that the name of Ms 6 and/or Margaret Molly Goodman you provided did not relate to Ms 1 as set out in charge 8; 9.2. In respect of charges 5 and 6 above, you deliberately intended to procure an amendment to the entry referred to at 1 above which was incorrect; 9.3. In respect of charge 7 above, you deliberately intended to procure an entry on the register which was incorrect; These charges are found proved The panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Margaret Molly Goodman is the Ms 1 who registered with the NMC in 1977 and is now using a false identity or a third party who has been provided with personal information regarding Ms 1 and is now posing as her. However, having found that the married name of Goodman relates to the marriage of Ms 3, date of birth [PRIVATE] and not to Ms 1, date of birth [PRIVATE], the panel was satisfied that the registrant knew that the information she provided was incorrect and/or fraudulent. In reaching this conclusion, the panel took into account the fact that, although the date of birth in her passport and in her enhanced CRB check is [PRIVATE], she consistently provided her date of birth to the NMC and her employers as the [PRIVATE]. Page 13 of 16

14 On the evidence, the panel was satisfied that in respect of charge 5 and 6, the registrant deliberately intended to procure an amendment to the entry and an entry on the register in the name of Margaret Molly Goodman which was incorrect. Accordingly the panel found charges 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 proved. Outcome and Reasons: Having determined that Mrs Goodman had incorrectly and/or fraudulently procured an entry on the NMC s Register, the panel then decided which direction, if any, to make under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001). Article 26(7) 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. Mr Reid, on behalf of the NMC, submitted that it would be wholly inconsistent, given its findings, for the panel to take no action or to direct that the entry on the NMC Register is amended. He therefore invited the panel to direct that the Registrar remove Mrs Goodman s entry from the Register. The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. In making its decision the panel took into account the submissions of Mr Reid as well as all the evidence before it. The panel considered that, having found that Mrs Goodman s entry on the NMC Register was incorrectly and/or fraudulently procured, it would be inappropriate to allow that entry to remain on the Register. The panel also considered that an amendment to the entry would be inappropriate in this case where there are concerns regarding the Page 14 of 16

15 integrity of the entry. The panel concluded that directing that Mrs Goodman s entry be removed from the Register was the only appropriate order to it, to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the nursing profession and the integrity of the NMC s Register. The panel therefore directs that the Registrar remove Mrs Goodman s entry from the Register. Mrs Goodman will be notified of the panel s decision in writing. Mrs Goodman has 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. Decision on Interim Order: Having directed that the Registrar remove Mrs Goodman s 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. The panel considered the submissions made by Mr Reid that an interim order should be made to cover the appeal period before the entry is removed, and, should an appeal be made, the period between receipt of notice of appeal and the appeal hearing on the grounds that it is otherwise in the public interest. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. In reaching its decision 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 Mrs Goodman s entry from the Register. The panel determined that, on the evidence before it, Mrs Goodman s entry on the NMC Register had been incorrectly and/or fraudulently procured some five times. The panel was satisfied that this seriousness of this case was Page 15 of 16

16 such that the high threshold for imposing an interim order on the grounds of public interest alone had been met (R (Sheikh) v General Dental Council [2007] EWHC 2972). Accordingly, the panel determined that an interim suspension order was otherwise in the public interest to protect the reputation of the profession and the NMC as its regulator in light of the finding that Mrs Goodman s entry to the Register was fraudulently procured. 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 Mrs Goodman s entry in the Register 28 days after she is sent the decision of this hearing in writing. That concludes this determination. Page 16 of 16