Facts: Mr Perry was summarily dismissed when a client made allegations that he had had an inappropriate and sexualised relationship with her and the NMC then made an interim order suspending his registration for 18 months. At the hearing, the committee allowed Mr Perry to give evidence on what he admitted and denied, and indicated that it would hear evidence that suggested that the allegations were clearly unfounded or malicious, but prevented Mr Perry’s legal representative from exploring the allegations with him in evidence. Mr Perry submitted that fairness dictated that he was given an opportunity to give evidence to address the substance of the allegations against him, and that the committee had, in preventing him from doing so, breached his rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR, and that the hearing had failed to comply with the common law requirements of fairness.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Hughes and Davis LJJ and Sir Stanley Burnton) dismissed the appeal, holding that in deciding whether an interim order was necessary for protection of the public or otherwise in the public interest the NMC had to permit both parties to make submissions on the need for an interim order, which involved considering the nature of the evidence on which the allegation was based. It was entitled to discount evidence that was inconsistent with objective or undisputed evidence or which was unreliable. It could also receive evidence on the effect of an order on a registrant, and a registrant was entitled to give evidence on that. A registrant could also give evidence to establish that the allegation was unfounded or exaggerated, but the committee was not required to hear evidence as to whether a substantive allegation was well-founded. It could not decide the credibility or merit of a disputed allegation; that was a matter for the panel at the substantive hearing. Fairness did not require that a registrant subject to an allegation of unfitness to practice be given an opportunity to give evidence on the substance of that allegation before the committee considered whether to make an interim suspension order: R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health.1[2009] UKHL 3, [2009] 1 AC 739.The NMC’s approach was compatible with the common law and the Convention rights of registrants.