Credibility & Reliability of Witness’ evidence in Fitness to Practise Hearings

Under what circumstances should a fitness to practise tribunal be required to set out its assessment of the general credibility and reliability of each witness’ evidence? To what the extent of the forensic analysis and reasoning required for making such assessments?

In Hindle v The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the High Court responded to the standard of reasoning to be expected of fitness to practise and other professional discipline tribunals when making findings of fact, on the ‘balance of probabilities’, which turn on witnesses’ conflicting factual narratives.

The case involved Laura Yalda Hindle, a nurse who faced 32 disciplinary charges brought by the NMC. These charges stemmed from a collective grievance filed by four nurses under her management at Stonyhurst College, an independent boarding school. The allegations ranged from physical misconduct to administrative failures.

The NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found several charges proved, resulting in a six-month suspension.

The appellant nurse argued that the tribunal failed to adequately assess the credibility and reliability of key witnesses, including addressing inconsistencies in their evidence. The tribunal was criticized for isolating its evaluation of each charge rather than taking a holistic view of the evidence, and for providing insufficient reasoning to justify its findings, which left procedural fairness in question. Additionally, concerns were raised about the improper handling of the burden of proof and the impact of procedural delays on the appellant.

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

1. Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses’ accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel’s ability to justify its conclusions.
2. Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants’ evidence over the appellant nurse’s and the paramedic’s. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses’ accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
3. Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses’ accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
4. Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse’s claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
5. Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.