Investigating Committee Fraudulent or Incorrect Entry Meeting 15 September 2017 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE

Transcription

1 Investigating Committee Fraudulent or Incorrect Entry Meeting 15 September 2017 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: Mr Nicolae Adrian Sendroiu NMC PIN: 16H0412C Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub part 1 Area of Registered Address: England Type of Case: Fraudulent entry Panel Members: Moriam Bartlett (Chair, Lay member) Paul Theed (Registrant member) Satya Schofield (Lay member) Legal Assessor: Panel Secretary: Margaret Dodd Aoife Kennedy Facts found proved by admission: All Outcome: The panel decided that the entry was made fraudulently and directed the Registrar remove the entry from the register Interim Order: Interim suspension order, 18 months

2 Details of charge: That you, as part of your application to join the NMC register: 1. Submitted an EU registration application form, signed by you on 16 March 2016, indicating that you had not been convicted of any criminal offence, when that was not the case. AND thereby, an entry made on sub part 1 of the register of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, in the name of Mr Nicolae Adrian Sendroiu, PIN 16H0412C, was fraudulently procured in that you knowingly sought to mislead the Nursing and Midwifery Council by providing false information, or in the alternative, incorrectly made in that the information provided was incorrect.

3 Decision on Service of Notice of Meeting: The proof of posting bundle contained evidence that notice of this Investigating Committee Fraudulent or Incorrect Entry Meeting was sent to Mr Sendroiu s registered address on 16 August 2017 by recorded delivery. Royal Mail Track and Trace documentation indicates that notice of this meeting was signed for in the printed name of N SENDROLU on 17 August The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel bore in mind Rule 26(5) of the Rules, which states: The panel noted that a registrant must be notified in the notice of an NMC meeting that the panel may also decide to impose an interim order on the registrant if they decide to remove or amend an entry on the register. In light of all the information available, the panel was satisfied that notice had been served in accordance with in accordance with Rules 11A and 34 of the the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 (as amended) ( the Rules ). Background: On 23 February 2017 the NMC received an from Mr Sendroiu attaching a letter from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which included details of a conviction he had received in 2012 under the name Giancarlo Rossi. It appears from the details on the DBS check supplied by Mr Sendroiu that the check was conducted by a possible employer, Carlton House. Mr Sendroiu was convicted on 20 April 2012 at Croydon Crown Court under the name Nicolae-Adrian Sendroiu for possession / control of article(s) for use in fraud(s) and for attempted theft (from an automatic machine or meter). He was sentenced on 18 May 2012 to 4 months imprisonment.

4 Mr Sendroiu applied to join the NMC register on 16 March 2016 under the name Mr Nicolae Adrian Sendroiu and his application was accepted on 24 May In section three of his application he ticked the box indicating no in response to the question have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence or issued with any cautions? Decision on the findings on facts and reasons When considering this matter, the panel took into account all the documentation before it, including the NMC bundle, which included Mr Sendroiu s self-referral and his admission that he had used the alias Giancarlo Rossi in order to gain entry to the UK in 2003, his EU registrations application form, his signed Certificate of Conviction and a Standard Directions Form signed (SDF) completed by Mr Sendroiu. The panel noted that Mr Sendroiu admitted the charge in his SDF form. The panel therefore found the charge proved by admission. The panel then went on to consider whether Mr Sendroiu s entry on the register was incorrectly and/ or fraudulently made. The panel noted Mr Sendroiu s SDF, signed by him, which states: My single mistake it s that I signed on NMC registration form that I haven t any conviction but I did it because honestly I never had any other conviction in my life and I just left it forgotten. The panel had sight of the EU registrations application form and considered that the place to indicate whether a registrant has had a conviction or not was unambiguous. Despite this, he ticked a box to indicate that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence and the only explanation offered by Mr Sendroiu was that he just left it forgotten. The panel considered that it was incredulous that Mr Sendroiu could have forgotten both his conviction and time served in prison. It considered that Mr

5 Sendroiu self-referred only after the convictions were recorded on the DBS disclosure form. The panel considered that Mr Sendroiu s entry on to the register was dishonest and intended to mislead the Registrar in making a decision as to the suitability of Mr Sendroiu to be entered on the register. As such, the panel determined that Mr Sendroiu s entry on the register following his EU registrations application was fraudulently procured. Decision on direction: Having determined that Mr Sendroiu had fraudulently procured an entry in the NMC s register, the panel then decided what direction, if any, to make under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001) (the Order). Article 26(7) of the Order states:..if the Investigating Committee is satisfied that an entry in the register has been fraudulently procured or incorrectly made, it may make an order that the Registrar remove or amend the entry and shall notify the person concerned of his right of appeal under article 38. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel determined that Mr Sendroiu s incorrect entry onto the register was neither trivial nor immaterial and that this has not been remedied nor has he subsequently been correctly entered on the register. For these reasons, taking no action would be inappropriate. The panel determined that amending Mr Sendroiu s entry is not applicable in this case because it is not a matter of a minor error. The panel bore in mind the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the Register. The panel concluded that the only appropriate course was to direct that Mr Sendroiu s entry be removed from the Register. This would allow

6 any application from him for re-entry onto the Register to be properly scrutinised by the Registrar. For these reasons the panel determined, in accordance with Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001) (the Order), to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Sendroiu s entry from the register. Any other outcome would be usurping the Registrar s role. Mr Sendroiu will be notified of the panel s decision in writing. Mr Sendroiu s has the right to appeal the decision under Article 38 of the Order. This order cannot take effect until the end of the appeal period (28 days from the date of the notice of the decision) or if an appeal is made, before the appeal has been concluded. Determination on Interim Order The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel had careful regard to the following paragraphs of the Guidance: 41 if the IC finds the allegation proved and makes an order for removal, any interim order in place will lapse. Additionally, any order for removal will not take effect until the end of the appeal period (28 days after the date on which the decision letter is served) or, if an appeal has been lodged, before the appeal has concluded. 42 At this stage the IC has the power to impose an interim order to prevent the nurse or midwife from practising until the order to remove their entry on the register takes effect. 43 This power is discretionary and should not be viewed as an automatic decision in every case. The IC should consider the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the register in light of any order it has made. The panel was satisfied that an interim suspension order is necessary to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the register.

7 The period of this order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined. If no appeal is made, then the interim suspension order will lapse and the order for removal of Mr Sendroiu s entry on the Register will take effect 28 days after he is sent the decision of this hearing in writing. That concludes this determination. This decision will be confirmed to Mr Sendroiu in writing.