[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-465514-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-465514-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","nursing-and-midwifery-council-fitness-to-practise-committee-substantive-hearing-kaleigh-noakes","Nursing and Midwifery Council - Fitness to Practise Committee - Substantive Hearing - Kaleigh Noakes","","Substantive hearing by the Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee concerning registrant Kaleigh Noakes. The panel recorded facts proved for multiple charges and determined fitness to practise was impaired, imposing a striking-off order, with an interim suspension of 18 months. The decision addresses recusal after inadvertent exposure to redacted information and considers service of the Notice of Hearing and proceeding in Miss Noakes’s absence, including fairness under Article 6 rights.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/nursing-and-midwifery-council-fitness-to-practise-committee-substantive-hearing-kaleigh-noakes/465514/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/nursing-and-midwifery-council-fitness-to-practise-committee-substantive-hearing-kaleigh-noakes/465514.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"\tCallum ","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What was the outcome of Kaleigh Noakes’s fitness to practise hearing?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The panel determined Miss Noakes’s fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a striking-off order, with an interim suspension order of 18 months.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why did the panel consider recusal during the hearing?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The legal assessor and the NMC raised fairness concerns after the panel was inadvertently exposed to information from Miss Noakes’s bundle that should have been withheld at that stage. The panel accepted advice, assessed the risk of prejudice, and concluded it could still conduct a fair hearing.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Did the panel proceed when Miss Noakes was absent?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Yes. The panel considered Rule 21 and noted Miss Noakes was not in attendance. Submissions relied on her email requesting removal and lack of engagement since 20 September 2024, and the panel proceeded in her absence.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},465514,1791386445,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":106,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},137451211410,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000bb0a9246f588df?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786362646172706240","Nursing and Midwifery Council  \nFitness to Practise Committee  \nSubstantive Hearing  \nWednesday, 23 October 2024 – Thursday, 31 October 2024 Monday, 11 November 2024  \nVirtual Hearing  \nName of Registrant: Kaleigh Noakes  \nNMC PIN: 18A0012W  \nPart(s) of the register: Nurses Part of the Register-Sub Part 1  \nMental Health Nurse, level 1 (29 March 2018)  \nRelevant Location: Merthyr Tydfil  \nType of case: Misconduct  \nPanel members: Richard Weydert-Jacquard (Chair, Registrant  \nmember)  \nKaren Shubert (Registrant member)  \nRichard Bayly (Lay member)  \nLegal Assessor: Nigel Mitchell  \nHearings Coordinator: Clara Federizo  \nNursing and Midwifery Council: Represented by Marcia Persaud , Case  \nPresenter  \nMiss Noakes: Not present and unrepresented  \nFacts proved: Charges 1 , 2, 3, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f,  \n8, 9, 10, 11b, 11c, 12a, 12b and 14  \nFacts not proved: Charges 4, 5, 11a , 12c and 13  \nFitness to practise: Impaired  \nSanction: Striking-off order  \nInterim order: Interim suspension order (18 months)  \nDecision and reasons on panel recusal  \nAt the outset of the hearing, Mr Mitchell , the legal assessor, provided advice to the panel which centred on ensuring a fair hearing by highlighting three key areas where the panel possesses information that it normally should not. He advised:  \n1. Interim Order Awareness: The panel has been informed about an interim order related to Miss Noakes, information typically withheld until the impairment stage.  \n2. Witness Information: Miss Noakes’ documents discuss Mr 1 , a non-witness who has not provided a signed witness statement, meaning the panel should not consider his alleged statements.  \n3. Conditions of Practice: There is information from Witness 2 relating to conditions of practice which Miss Noakes may have been under which should have been redacted.  \nMr Mitchell urged the panel to disregard these details, which have now been properly redacted, to avoid bias in its decision-making. He emphasised that if the panel cannot ignore these aspects, it should consider recusal to maintain fairness and the appearance of impartiality, noting that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.  \nDr Persaud , on behalf of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), also addressed concerns about fairness in the hearing due to the inadvertent exposure of information from Miss Noakes’ bundle, which it should not have at this stage, but which has now been redacted.  \nDr Persaud endorsed the legal advice that the panel should consider whether exposure to this material could infringe on Miss Noakes’Article 6 right to a fair hearing. If so, the panel should consider recusal to preserve impartiality.  \nDr Persaud submitted that the NMC is not requesting that the panel recuses itself and that it is a matter for the panel on whether a fair hearing is achievable despite the exposure to redacted information. She emphasised that the panel should weigh the risk of prejudice independently.  \nThe panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.  \nThe panel considered the three key areas separately first and then collectively. It noted that an interim order does not form the basis of the charges and was therefore irrelevant at this stage. It also noted that Mr 1 is not a witness in this case and therefore anything he may have said can properly be disregarded. The panel considered that whether or not Miss Noakes was on an interim conditions of practice order is not relevant to this stage of the proceedings.  \nThe panel determined that, as a professional and experienced panel, it was able to put irrelevant information out of its mind. The panel was satisfied that it could conduct a fair hearing and keep to admissible evidence to reach a determination based on only the evidence that is before it.  \nDecision and reasons on service of Notice of Hearing  \nThe panel was informed at the start of this hearing that Miss Noakes was not in attendance and that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent to M","cbCaihS5OlKlJMKD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihS5OlKlJMKD","pdf",421582,58,"English","# Fitness to Practise Committee Hearing Summary\n## Panel members and case details\n## Decision and reasons on panel recusal\n## Decision and reasons on service of Notice of Hearing\n## Decision and reasons on proceeding in the absence of Miss Noakes","[{\"question\":\"What was the outcome of Kaleigh Noakes’s fitness to practise hearing?\",\"answer\":\"The panel determined Miss Noakes’s fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a striking-off order, with an interim suspension order of 18 months.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the panel consider recusal during the hearing?\",\"answer\":\"The legal assessor and the NMC raised fairness concerns after the panel was inadvertently exposed to information from Miss Noakes’s bundle that should have been withheld at that stage. The panel accepted advice, assessed the risk of prejudice, and concluded it could still conduct a fair hearing.\"},{\"question\":\"Did the panel proceed when Miss Noakes was absent?\",\"answer\":\"Yes. The panel considered Rule 21 and noted Miss Noakes was not in attendance. Submissions relied on her email requesting removal and lack of engagement since 20 September 2024, and the panel proceeded in her absence.\"}]","Nursing and Midwifery Council - Fitness to Practise Committee - Substantive Hearing - Kaleigh Noakes | PDF",1790769715,146]