Nursing and Midwifery Council Investigating Committee Fraudulent Entry Substantive Hearing 10-11 October 2017 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC PIN: Miss Kudakwashe Kayiya 12B0477E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse sub part 1 Adult Nursing (17 February 2013) Area of Registered Address: Type of Case: Panel Members: Legal Assessor: Panel Secretary: Miss Kudakwashe Kayiya: England Incorrect and/or fraudulent entry Caroline Corby (Chair, Lay member) Julie Wainwright (Registrant member) Peter Cadman (Lay member) Andrew Reid Anjeli Shah Present and represented by Munyaradzi Chiunye on day 1 only Nursing and Midwifery Council: Facts proved by admission: Outcome: Interim Order: Represented by Aja Hall, counsel, instructed by NMC Regulatory Legal Team Charge 1 and the allegation that the entry was fraudulently procured and/or incorrectly made The panel direct the Registrar to remove the entry on the register in accordance with Article 26(7) of the Order Interim Suspension Order for 18 months 1
Details of charge (as read): That you, a Registered Nurse: 1. In or around November 2009 provided a false General Certificate of Education dated November 1996 purporting to be issued by the University of Cambridge Local Examination/International Examinations in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Culture Zimbabwe, to the University of Suffolk in support of your application for admittance to a Diploma of Higher Education in Adult Nursing course; (the panel found this charge proved by way of your admission) And thereby, an entry in your name on Sub part 1 of the Register of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, namely Kudakwashe Kayiya, PIN 12B0477E, was fraudulently procured and/or incorrectly made. (the panel found this charge proved in relation to fraudulent procurement and incorrect entry by way of your admission) 2
Background This case arose when the Nursing and Midwifery Council ( NMC ) received a referral from NHS Counter Fraud where you were under investigation in relation to educational qualifications that were used by you to satisfy the entry criteria for the Adult Nursing programme at the University of Suffolk ( the University ). You obtained a Diploma of Higher Education in Adult Nursing from the University on 16 February 2013. The University subsequently learned that a certificate you had used to gain entry on to the course was false. This certificate pertained to O Level qualifications you claimed to have received when you were previously living in Zimbabwe. The University subsequently referred their investigation on to NHS Counter Fraud. The NMC received the referral, and after confirming that you had an entry on the NMC s register, it carried out its own investigation. Ms 1, an Operations Manager for External Relations at University Campus Suffolk, said that if the University had known at the time that the certificate you submitted was false you would not have been admitted and you would not have been allowed to complete the course. Furthermore, the University would not have produced a declaration of good health and good character, which is usually automatically produced when a student completes the diploma, and is then subsequently passed on to the NMC. Ms 2, a Lead Counter Fraud Manager at Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, carried out an investigation on behalf of NHS Counter Fraud. She said that as part of the investigation carried out, Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council ( ZIMSEC ) was contacted to comment on the certificate that you provided to the University. After this verification process, it was found that the qualifications listed on the certificate and the certificate itself were false. Mr 3, an Assistant Director at ZIMSEC gave a statement to NHS Counter Fraud, and produced a timeline for the process by which it was found that the certificate provided by you was false. In his statement, he set out a number of reasons why this certificate 3
was not authentic. He said that the examination centre number listed was incorrect, the candidate number did not correlate with your name, the centre number listed did not exist, the subjects and grades listed on the certificate were not authentic and that there were discrepancies in the layout and standard information printed on the certificate. Furthermore, Mr 3 said that the certificate listed a qualification for an examination which you had not taken. These inaccuracies and discrepancies were confirmed by Mr 4, a former Group Manager at the University of Cambridge International Examinations. Mr 3 obtained the subjects that you sat examinations for in November 1995 and 1996 and the corresponding grades, and found that these did not match the subjects and qualifications listed on the certificate sent to the University. In particular you had not taken a mathematics examination at all, a requirement for the University s course. Ms 5, a Senior Registrations Officer employed by the NMC, confirmed the process for a registrant to be admitted on to the NMC register. Ms 4 confirmed that on 20 February 2013, the NMC received confirmation from the University that you had successfully completed the Adult Nursing programme on 16 February 2013. Ms 4 said that the University produced a declaration of good health and good character on 20 February 2013, and that this was received by the NMC on 25 February 2013. By way of this, you were admitted on to the NMC s register. You were interviewed by NHS Counter Fraud in November 2013, and you said that you did not know that the certificate was false. You told the organisation that your family in Zimbabwe had the original certificate, and that they sent this to you in England in 2005 to provide to the University. Mr 3 s written statement reported that you phoned ZIMSEC in December 2013 and said that your sister did the falsification of your results on your behalf. During this telephone call, you gave Mr 3 the correct years for when you sat certain examinations. He went on to say she wanted us to write a false email to NHS UK that the St Mary s Mission: November 1996 results were authentic, but we advised her to tell the truth to the responsible authority. 4
Based on the enquiries carried out, it was established that the certificate you provided to the University was false. It is therefore alleged that you provided a false certificate to the University to support your application for admittance on to the Diploma of Higher Education in Adult Nursing Course. It is subsequently alleged that your entry on to the NMC s register was fraudulently procured and/or incorrectly made as a result of this false certificate. You admitted that the certificate provided to the University was false, and that therefore an entry on to the NMC s register was fraudulently procured as a result. However, it is your case that you did not know that the certificate was false and that you had asked a family member to obtain a replacement certificate from ZIMSEC in 2009, and that it was likely that ZIMSEC provided the wrong information on this occasion. It is your case that you do not remember the grades that you originally received and cannot therefore say whether the grades on the false certificate are correct or not. You accepted that you did not provide this explanation when you were interviewed by NHS Counter Fraud in 2013 but asserted that you did not fully understand why you were being interviewed. It is your case that ZIMSEC are responsible for issuing the false replacement certificate, due to the organisation s poor record keeping and lack of reliability. 5
Decision on facts and reasons At the start of this hearing you admitted the charge as set out above. You also admitted the allegation that your entry on to the register had been fraudulently procured and incorrectly made. The charge and allegation were therefore announced as proved by way of your admission. 6
Outcome and Reasons Having determined that your entry on to the NMC s register was fraudulently procured and incorrectly made, by way of your earlier admissions, 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 submissions from Ms Hall, on behalf of the NMC, and from Mr Chiunye, on your behalf. Ms Hall said that the only option appropriate in these circumstances was for the panel to direct your removal from the register. Mr Chiunye said that he would leave the decision to the panel. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel had regard to the NMC s guidance on fraudulent or incorrect entry to the register. The panel noted that it had the option to take no action, to amend the entry on the register or to direct the Registrar to remove your entry on the register. The panel considered each of these options in turn. The panel first considered whether to take no action, and determined that this was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The panel considered that this was a serious matter involving the submission of a false educational certificate in support of your application to enrol on a university course. This had inevitably impacted on the decision to admit you to the register. The panel noted that no corrective action had been 7
taken in respect of the entry. For all these reasons the panel decided that taking no action would not be sufficient. The panel then considered whether to amend the entry on the register. The panel noted that amending an entry on the NMC s register was appropriate in cases where it would be a matter of rectifying a simple mistake on the entry, for example a typographical error. The panel considered that the circumstances of this case were not such that there was a simple error on the entry itself, but rather your entry on to the register had been made on the basis of false information. In these circumstances, the entry was not capable of amendment. The panel therefore determined that the only suitable course of action in this case is to direct that the Registrar removes your entry from the Register, in accordance with Article 26(7) of the Order. The panel recognised that you had made full admissions at the outset of this hearing. The panel noted that it has been asked by both Ms Hall and Mr Chiunye to make a finding as to whether at the time you sent the certificate to the University you had knowledge that the certificate was false. The panel noted that you appeared to have given different explanations for how a false certificate was provided. During the interview with NHS Counter Fraud in November 2013, you said that your family in Zimbabwe retained the original certificate and sent this on to you in 2005 in the UK. However, during the course of this hearing, Mr Chiunye, on your behalf, told the panel that you had asked a family member to obtain a replacement certificate from ZIMSEC, and that this was done and subsequently sent to you. The panel also noted that immediately after the interview in 29 November 2013, according to the statement of Mr 3, you phoned ZIMSEC in December 2013 and said that your sister had falsified your examination results, and you asked ZIMSEC to write a false email to NHS UK that the November 1996 results were authentic. Furthermore, the panel noted that at this hearing, Mr Chiunye explained that ZIMSEC s poor record 8
keeping and reliability as an organisation was the reason for a false certificate being produced. The panel noted that even during this hearing Mr Chiunye said on your behalf that you could not say what your grades were and whether it was your case that the grades on the certificate provided to the University were correct or not. The panel considered that you had given inconsistent explanations as to the circumstances in which you had submitted a false certificate to the University. The panel considered that if it was the case that the false certificate came about as a result of errors on the part of ZIMSEC, or as a result of the actions of a family member, you had ample opportunity to provide this explanation during the interview with NHS Counter Fraud in 2013 in answer to specific questions asked of you. In all of the circumstances the panel concluded that you had been aware that the certificate was false at the time you submitted it to the University. 9
Determination on Interim Order Under Article 31 of the Order, the panel considered whether an interim order should be imposed in this case. A panel may only make an interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, and/or is otherwise in the public interest, and/or is in the registrant s own interests. Ms Hall, on behalf of the NMC, submitted that an 18 month interim suspension order should be made on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. She submitted that this would be consistent with the panel s finding to direct the Registrar to remove your entry on the NMC s register, on the basis of the false certificate provided to the University. The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel was satisfied that an interim order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision to direct the Registrar to remove your entry from the register. It decided to impose an interim suspension order. To do otherwise would be incompatible with its earlier findings. 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 Registrar will remove your entry from the register 28 days after you are sent the decision of this hearing in writing. That concludes this determination. 10