Brabazon-Drenning v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting - The Case of the Bad Nurse

Brabazon-Drenning v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting, [2000] All ER (D) 1620

Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

31 October 2000

Brief Summary

A nurse and nursing home owner was charged with, among other things, failing to adequately staff her nursing home.  She was too depressed and anxious to attend her hearing and so the hearing proceeded without her.  She alleged, among other things, that Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) was violated because she was not given the opportunity to defend herself at the hearing and that the hearing should have been postponed until she was well enough to attend.  The court agreed that Article 6 had been breached.

The facts: 

The appellant was the owner of the Firs Nursing and Residential Home in Redruth, Cornwall. The home was a registered home for 18 nursing and 12 residential beds. The appellant was required to have a registered nurse on duty at all times, together with a number of care assistants.

On September 6, 1997, two registration officers from the area health authority inspected the premises. They found no registered staff on duty, and also that certain women had been administering medication in the absence of a registered nurse. After several complaints from registration officers regarding a shortage of staff were sent to the appellant in September and October 1997, the home was finally closed on October 17, 1997.

The disciplinary hearing was to take place on November 30, 1999. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee informed the appellant of the charges, the nature of the evidence against her, and recommended that she should seek representation.  Before the hearing could take place, letters were sent to the PCC from the appellant's mother and general practitioner that stated that appellant was suffering from mixed anxiety/depression related to the closure of the Firs Nursing Home, and that she would not be able to attend the hearing and that it should be rescheduled for a few months in the future.  An officer also spoke with the appellant who stated she was not mentally able to proceed at that time.  The PCC was aware of these communications and proceeded with the hearing in the appellant's absence.

The charges against the appellant were: 

(1) Permitting untrained staff to administer medication. 

(2) Permitting the practice of medication being potted up in advance of being administered. 

(3) Failing to ensure that there was a proper registered nurse covering for a morning shift when she was absent. 

(4) Being not contactable when she was the first level nurse on call. 

(5) Failing to ensure that the home had trained nurse cover

(6) Failing to be registered between September 1 and April 22, 1997. 

Appellant was found guilty of all six charges.

Human Rights Argument:

The appellant argued that the PPC should have adjourned the hearing so as to permit the appellant to be represented and to appear. The failure to do so involved a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Holding:

The court found that there were no overriding public interest considerations which should have deprived the appellant of a basic right to be present when the case was put against her, and to be in a position where she could either cross-examine herself, or have a representative with whom she could communicate cross-examine on her behalf. It was a breach both of the principles of natural justice and Article 6. 

Villain? 

This nurse and nursing home owner should have taken adequate steps to ensure that her nursing home was adequately staffed.  However, there were no allegations of abuse of her patients and she, overall, appears to be a very sympathetic party.  Definitely not a villain.