It is also open to the committee, where it considers it necessary as an urgent
measure in the public interest, to order the interim suspension' of a person's registration pending completion of the investigation and bringing the case urgently to the Professional Conduct Committee .PCC). This power has been used to good effect since it was made available. The PCC, meeting in public, considers cases referred to it by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee. The procedures by which it operates are prescribed in the Professional Conduct Rules. The standard of evidence that must be satisfied is the same as that which applies in criminal courts: the committee must be satisfied so that it is sure. Given the enormity of the committee's weightiest sanction ± removal from a person of their registration status thus preventing them from practising in their chosen profession ± this seems only right. Where the PCC finds the facts alleged proved, applying that high standard of proof, it must then consider whether the proven facts amount to misconduct in a professional sense. In doing so it is likely to be mindful of the Council's principal template for conduct, the Code of Professional Conduct. If it labels the proven facts misconduct', having heard evidence as to the practitioner's previous history and
in mitigation and set the case in its context, the committee must decide whether:
. to remove or suspend a person's name from the register with immediate effect;
. to administer a formal caution;
. to postpone its judgment for a stated period .leaving open the possibility of
removal) and state the evidence it requires for a resumed hearing;or
. to take no further action on the proven misconduct.
The PCC also considers applications for restoration to the register of persons
previously removed for misconduct. Just as there is nothing in law that requires
the committee to remove the registration of persons found guilty of specific acts of
misconduct .whether by action or omission), nothing requires restoration after a
specific period of time. The decisions lie entirely in the hands of the committees.
Regrettably, in the view of this author, the law does not require them to give the
reasons for their decisions.
The one constraint of which those serving on the PCC are aware, and about
which they are sometimes reminded by the legal assessor who sits with them .not
to participate in the decision but to advise on matters of law and admissibility of
evidence), is the right of persons who feel aggrieved by a decision to remove them
from the register to appeal against that decision to the High Court. That right has
been exercised on a significant number of occasions since 1983, sometimes with
success. In addition the growing area of law that allows persons to seek judicial
review of a finding of misconduct, even if it was not followed by a decision to
remove from the register, has been exploited on a number of occasions.
Operating in parallel with this process is another which provides the UKCC with
the means to consider those cases where the allegation is not that the person
concerned is guilty of misconduct, but rather that their fitness to practise is
seriously impaired by reason of illness that is not of a transient form.
That, in essence, is how the system operates at present. It has to be recognised,
however, that in common with the comparable system for the medical profession
and those for other registered health professions, it no longer enjoys significant
34 Nursing Law and Ethics