Home Crime & Courts UK: Zim nurse Enock Mhindurwa previously accused of forcing patient to eat excrement struck off

UK: Zim nurse Enock Mhindurwa previously accused of forcing patient to eat excrement struck off

by reporter263
Enock Mhindurwa

Enock Mhindurwa, a mental health nurse who was once accused of forcing a paranoid schizophrenic to eat his own excrement in 2010 has been struck off the nursing register for 28 miscounduct charges including threatening behavour and sexual harrassment.

Mhindurwa was banned from practising as a nurse at a virtual hearing of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) 0n 19 December 2022.

The NMC found 28 out of 29 misconduct allegations against 52 year old Mhindurwa were proven.

The incident took place at the at the Hospital Mr Mhindurwa worked on a fixed term contract as an interim
hospital manager.

READ FULL EXTRACT FROM NMC HERE:

data-full-width="">

Decision and reasons on proceeding in the absence of Mr Mhindurwa
The panel next considered whether it should proceed in the absence of Mr Mhindurwa. It
had regard to Rule 21 and heard the submissions of Mr Sanghera who invited the panel to
continue in the absence of Mr Mhindurwa. He submitted that Mr Mhindurwa had voluntarily
absented himself.
4
Mr Sanghera referred the panel to the email correspondence from Mr Mhindurwa dated 15
November 2022 which stated:
“This serves to notify you of my decision not to attend or participate in further
discussions. I clarified that I was voluntarily removing myself from the NMC register.
Therefore, I have no further dealings with the organisation and its entirety. This is
not an admission to a guilty plea, but I intend not to be on the NMC register”.
A further email response from the same day stated:
“I think I made it very clear that I have no intentions of continuing with NMC
dealings. What’s the point of anyone representing me when I don’t want to be on
your register anymore? Therefore, nobody will attend from my end. I hope this
suffices”.
The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
The panel noted that its discretionary power to proceed in the absence of a registrant
under the provisions of Rule 21 is one that should be exercised ‘with the utmost care and
caution’ as referred to in the case of R v Jones (Anthony William) (No.2) [2002] UKHL 5.
The panel decided to proceed in the absence of Mr Mhindurwa. In reaching this decision,
the panel considered the submissions of Mr Sanghera and the advice of the legal
assessor. It had particular regard to the factors set out in the decision of R v Jones and
General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and had regard to the overall
interests of justice and fairness to all parties. It noted that:
• No application for an adjournment has been made by Mr Mhindurwa;
• There is no reason to suppose that adjourning would secure his attendance
at some future date;
• Seven witnesses have been warned to attend to give live evidence;
5
• Not proceeding may inconvenience the witnesses, their employer(s) and,
for those involved in clinical practice, the clients who need their
professional services;
• The charges relate to events that occurred in 2019;
• Further delay may have an adverse effect on the ability of witnesses
accurately to recall events; and
• There is a strong public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case.
There is some disadvantage to Mr Mhindurwa in proceeding in his absence. He will not be
able to challenge the evidence relied upon by the NMC in person and will not be able to
give evidence on his own behalf. However, in the panel’s judgement, this can be
mitigated. The panel can make allowance for the fact that the NMC’s evidence will not be
tested by cross-examination and, of its own volition, can explore any inconsistencies in the
evidence which it identifies. Furthermore, the limited disadvantage is the consequence of
Mr Mhindurwa’s decisions to absent himself from the hearing, waive his rights to attend,
and/or be represented, and to not provide evidence or make submissions on his own
behalf.
In these circumstances, the panel decided that it was in the interests of justice and
expedition of this matter to proceed in the absence of Mr Mhindurwa. The panel will draw
no adverse inference from Mr Mhindurwa’s absence in its findings of fact.
Details of charge (as amended)
That you, a registered nurse, whilst working at the [PRIVATE], between 20 August 2019
and 23 October 2019:

  1. In respect of Colleague A
    a) Told Colleague A “You do what I ask and not what you want to do”, or words to
    that effect, in a threatening manner
    6
    b) Told Colleague A that if she wasn’t happy you would find someone to replace
    her, or words to that effect, in a threatening manner
    c) Told Colleague A or Colleague A and others that she/they should do things your
    way or should look elsewhere for jobs, or words to that effect, in a threatening
    manner
    d) Told Colleague A that you preferred her to be blonde, or words to that effect
    e) Asked Colleague A if she could show you photographs of her tattoos, on her
    phone
    f) Told Colleague A that staff thought she was going into his office to get off with
    him or words to that effect
    g) Said to Colleague A “Imagine what people would think when we come out of this
    cupboard” or words to that effect
    h) Showed Colleague A a photograph on your phone which was an image of you
    wearing a sleeveless top and pyjama trousers, or similar
  2. In respect of Colleague B
    a) Asked Colleague B why she had shown you her underwear the previous day, or
    words to that effect
    b) Took a lollipop from the mouth of Colleague B and placed it in your own mouth
    c) Said to Colleague B “That’s a shame I thought we could have a bottle of wine at
    mine and chill for the weekend”, or words to that effect
    d) Said to Colleague B “It’s not just my car that is big”, or words to that effect, in a
    sexually suggestive manner
  3. In respect of Colleague C
    a) On one or more occasions came into the office of Colleague C without business
    or clinical justification
    b) Commented in a meeting that Colleague C reminded you of someone that wants
    to make him fall asleep and pretended to be asleep
    7
    c) Asked Colleague C about her partner
    d) Asked Colleague C whether she was happy in her relationship
    e) Suggested to Colleague C that if she was not happy in her relationship maybe
    she should try going out with him
    f) On one or more occasions you looked at the chest of Colleague C and looked
    her up and down
    g) Said to Colleague C, “I’ve got a big black one for you in my car”, or words to that
    effect, in a sexually suggestive manner
    h) Gestured to Colleague C that you were watching her by pointing at her from
    your eyes
    i) During a telephone conversation concerning authorisation to book agency staff
    you asked Colleague C to go out with you at the weekend
    j) Suggested to Colleague C that you would be able to get her the job of her
    manager who was off sick
    k) On one or more occasions you stood too close to Colleague C
    l) On one or more occasions you gazed at the chest of Colleague C
  4. And your conduct as specified in Charge 1 d) and/or e) and/or f) and/or g) and/or h)
    was sexually motivated in that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship
    with Colleague A
  5. And your conduct as specified in Charge 1 d) and/or e) and/or f) and/or g) and/or h)
    amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague A
  6. And your conduct as specified in Charge 2 a) and/or b) and/or c) and/or d) was
    sexually motivated in that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with
    Colleague B
  7. And your conduct as specified in Charge 2 a) and/or b) and/or c) and/or d)
    amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague B
    8
  8. And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
    and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) was sexually motivated in
    that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with Colleague C
  9. And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
    and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) amounted to sexual
    harassment of Colleague C
    AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your
    misconduct.
    Decision and reasons on application to amend the charge
    The panel heard an application made by Mr Sanghera, on behalf of the NMC, to amend
    the wording of charges numbers 8 and 9.
    The proposed amendment was to incorporate the words ‘and/or k) and/or l)’ to charges 8
    and 9. It was submitted by Mr Sanghera that to allow the proposed amendments was in
    the interests of justice. He submitted that Mr Mhindurwa has known about the charges in
    advance of this hearing and has indicated that he does not wish to participate in
    proceedings. Mr Sanghera submitted that this is not an application to include a new
    charge but to incorporate an aspect of an already existing charge into another already
    existing charge so would not cause unfairness to Mr Mhindurwa.
    Charge 8
    And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
    and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) was sexually motivated in
    that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with Colleague C
    Charge 9
    9
    And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
    and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) amounted to sexual
    harassment of Colleague C
    The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor and had regard to Rule 28 of ‘Nursing
    and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004’, as amended (the Rules).
    The panel was of the view that such an amendment, as applied for, was in the interests of
    justice. The panel was satisfied that there would be no prejudice to Mr Mhindurwa and no
    injustice would be caused to either party by the proposed amendment being allowed. It
    therefore determined that it was appropriate to allow the amendment.
    Decision and reasons on application for hearing to be held in private
    The panel of its own volition considered whether to hold parts or the entirety of the hearing
    in private on the basis that proper exploration of Mr Mhindurwa’s case involves reference
    to information which may identify vulnerable witnesses giving live evidence at the hearing.
    This was considered to pursuant to Rule 19 of the ‘Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness
    to Practise) Rules 2004’, as amended (the Rules).
    Mr Sanghera informed the panel that the NMC opposed the hearing being held entirely in
    private. He submitted that the NMC did not oppose parts of the hearing being held in
    private. He submitted that reference to any identifying information can be redacted from
    the determination and transcript and the names of all witnesses can be anonymised.
    The legal assessor reminded the panel that while Rule 19(1) provides, as a starting point,
    that hearings shall be conducted in public, Rule 19(3) states that the panel may hold
    hearings partly or wholly in private if it is satisfied that this is justified by the interests of
    any party or by the public interest.
    10
    Having heard that there will be reference to information that may identify the witnesses in
    this case, the panel directed that the names of all witnesses involved be anonymised and
    that any reference to the hospital, department and job titles be redacted in the transcript
    and written determination in order to maintain the anonymity of the vulnerable witnesses.
    Background
    The NMC received a referral from [PRIVATE] (“the Hospital”) on 3 March 2020. At the
    time, Mr Mhindurwa was working at the Hospital on a fixed term contract as an interim
    hospital manager.
    The referral identified one regulatory concern: the inappropriate use of language and
    conduct, in a sexually motivated manner, towards Colleagues A, B and C between 21
    August and 22 October 2019.
    It is alleged that Mr Mhindurwa used inappropriate language and behaviour that was
    sexually motivated towards those colleagues at work. The alleged behaviour included:
  • Commenting on personal appearance – e.g. hair, tattoos
  • Showing photos of himself in a tight top/pyjamas
  • Making sexual innuendos – e.g. about the size of his car, and pens etc
  • Often stating that people thought he was “getting off” with the female staff members
    – one such incident occurred when he was alone in a maintenance cupboard with a
    female colleague
  • Body language – gazing at breasts and standing overly close
  • The women described the registrant’s behaviour as ‘predatory’ and ‘flirtatious’
    Mr Mhindurwa has made it clear in his correspondence to the NMC that he does not admit
    any of the charges.
    Decision and reasons on facts
    11
    In reaching its decisions on the disputed facts, the panel took into account all the oral and
    documentary evidence in this case together with the submissions made by Mr Sanghera.
    The panel has drawn no adverse inference from the non-attendance of Mr Mhindurwa.
    The panel was aware that the burden of proof rests on the NMC, and that the standard of
    proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. This means that a fact will
    be proved if a panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the incident occurred as
    alleged.
    The panel heard live evidence from the following witnesses called on behalf of the NMC:
    • Colleague A: Colleague A;
    • Colleague B: Colleague B;
    • Colleague C: Colleague C;
    • Ms 1: Ms 1;
    • Ms 2: Ms 2;
    • Ms 3: Ms 3;
    • Mr 4: Mr 4.
    Before making any findings on the facts, the panel heard and accepted the advice of the
    legal assessor. It considered the witness and documentary evidence provided by the NMC
    which included the record of Mr Mhindurwa’s local interview dated 11 January 2020 and
    also his reflective statement dated August 2020.
    While the panel was in the course of deliberating as to its finding of facts, the following
    email exchange between the NMC case officer and Mr Mhindurwa took place.
    12
    The NMC case officer emailed Mr Mhindurwa on 12 December 2022 to inform him “The
    panel are currently deliberating on facts. The hearing will resume tomorrow and we have
    decided to hear the remainder of the hearing virtually due to train strikes and weather
    disruptions. If you change your mind and decide you wish to attend any of the hearing
    dates, please see below joining details”.
    Mr Mhindurwa responded on 13 December 2022 “This case stressed me. What time can I
    attend to answer questions if there are any?”
    The NMC case officer replied to Mr Mhindurwa on 13 December 2022 “The panel will be
    resuming the hearing at 12pm today. Before they hand down their decision on the facts of
    the case, they are willing to hear anything further you may wish to say. Please can you
    confirm whether you are able to and will attend the hearing at 12pm? I look forward to
    hearing from you as soon as possible”.
    Mr Mhindurwa replied “Thank you for your email. Apart from the statements I submitted, I
    have nothing further to say. I took up a Hospital with poor performance history, which
    needed a massive system change following two deaths of service users and the
    subsequent bad media publicity. I maintain my innocence. Since the panel is already
    deliberating, I have nothing further to say but protest my innocence. I will wait to hear the
    outcome and will not join at 12”.
    The panel therefore resumed its consideration of the disputed charges and made the
    following findings.

Charge 1a, 1b and 1c
In respect of Colleague A
a) Told Colleague A “You do what I ask and not what you want to do”, or words to
that effect, in a threatening manner
13
b) Told Colleague A that if she wasn’t happy you would find someone to replace
her, or words to that effect, in a threatening manner
c) Told Colleague A or Colleague A and others that she/they should do things your
way or should look elsewhere for jobs, or words to that effect, in a threatening
manner
These charges are found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A.
Colleague A said in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] would also request to speak to
me away from the ward. He was verbally threatening and would say “you do what I ask
and not what you want to do”.
Colleague A also wrote in her local statement dated 7 December 2019 “[Mr Mhindurwa]
advised that if I didn’t want to do the things he was asking then he could always get an
agency worker in but I would lose my job”.
Colleague A’s written evidence was consistent with her oral evidence. Colleague A told
the panel how she and her colleagues felt threatened with their jobs by Mr Mhindurwa. Ms
1 also told the panel that a number of people had been threatened with their jobs by Mr
Mhindurwa.
The panel also heard from other witnesses that Mr Mhindurwa was unprofessional and
had a mocking personality. It also heard that Mr Mhindurwa would use his powerful
position as leverage.
Mr Mhindurwa was not asked about these allegations in the local investigation nor does he
refer to them in his reflective statement.
14
The panel found Colleague A to a be a credible and reliable witness with no reason to
fabricate her account of these allegations. The panel accepted Colleague A’s evidence
and determined that it was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa had acted in a
threatening manner towards her as described in the charges. The panel therefore found
charges 1a, 1b and 1c proved.
Charge 1d
d) Told Colleague A that you preferred her to be blonde, or words to that effect
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A and Mr
Mhindurwa.
Colleague A detailed in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] commented on my hair
colour changing. I had changed my hair colour from blonde to silver. He asked why I had
changed it and he said preferred me to be blonde. I didn’t really know what to say or
where to look. I tried to concentrate on my paperwork”. Colleague A also describes in the
local investigation how Mr Mhindurwa would comment on her hair colour and he asked
why she had changed the colour as he preferred her blonde.
Colleague A’s oral evidence was also consistent with the written evidence. The panel
particularly noted that Colleague A stated that since these incidents she has never been
blonde again because she does not want to attract unwanted attention.
Mr Mhindurwa’ response in investigation interview was “[Mr Mhindurwa] said that there
were conversations about [Colleague A’s] hairstyles and tattoos, but that these were
initiated by [Colleague A]. [Colleague A] had changed her hairstyle a number of times and
she showed [Mr Mhindurwa] photographs on her phone and discussed them with him. [Mr
Mhindurwa] spoke clearly and confidently about the importance he sees in keeping a
15
distance between the professional and the personal when dealing with staff. [Mr
Mhindurwa’s] view is that he may have commented on [Colleague A’s] appearance, but it
was in the context of a discussion she had initiated”.
When asked to comment on Mr Mhindurwa’s response Colleague A called it ‘nonsense’.
Having found Colleague A to a be a credible and reliable witness the panel accepted her
clear and detailed account of the incident. The panel preferred Colleague A’s account to
Mr Mhindurwa’s and determined that it was more likely than not that he had said to
Colleague A that he preferred her to be blonde. The panel therefore found charge 1d
proved.
Charge 1e
e) Asked Colleague A if she could show you photographs of her tattoos, on her
phone
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A and Mr
Mhindurwa’s responses.
Mr Mhindurwa said in his local investigation responses that conversations about
Colleague A’s appearance were all initiated by Colleague A, which she refuted.
Colleague A said in her witness statement “There were other times where [Mr Mhindurwa]
would comment on my tattoos. The tattoos could be seen at the top of my back which
come onto my neck. He said “I can see you have a tattoo on your neck” and asked if I had
any pictures on my phone that I could show him. [Mr Mhindurwa] asked me to have a look
and I told him they are just for me. He made a childish noise to sound like I was getting
snappy with him”.
16
Colleague A’s local statement stated “I was in his office one afternoon and he asked me
about my tattoos. He asked if I had a tattoo on my back. I said yes. He wanted to know if I
had any pictures and if he could see them”.
Colleague A’s oral evidence was also consistent with her written evidence. She told the
panel “He was flirtatious showing pictures and asking to see pictures of my body” and “He
was a stranger making comments about my body and hair, no one should have to tolerate
that”.
Having found Colleague A to a be a credible and reliable witness the panel preferred her
clear and detailed account of the incident to Mr Mhindurwa’s account. The panel
determined that it was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa asked Colleague A to show
him photographs of her tattoos. The panel therefore found charge 1e proved.
Charge 1f and 1g
f) Told Colleague A that staff thought she was going into his office to get off with
him or words to that effect
g) Said to Colleague A “Imagine what people would think when we come out of this
cupboard” or words to that effect
These charges are found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A and Mr
Mhindurwa’s responses.
Mr Mhindurwa completely denied these allegations in the local investigation. “[Mr
Mhindurwa] accepted that his relationship with [Colleague A] was at times difficult as she
wasn’t happy with the work he was asking her to do. [Mr Mhindurwa] said that “getting off
with” is not a phrase he uses and there was no conversations with [Colleague A] of these
17
kinds”. In response to this in her oral evidence Colleague A stated “He said it far too often
for me to have forgotten”.
Colleague A said in her statement “There were a couple of occasions where I would go
into [Mr Mhindurwa’s] office and he would say that other colleagues thought I was going
into his office to get off with him. This means kissing each other. He said at one point that
we both had colds and that it would appear we were getting off with each other because of
this”.
She further stated “There was one incident in which I cannot recall the date. We needed to
go into the small room for the fax machines. It was an archiving cupboard with many
boxes on the shelves. I asked [Mr Mhindurwa] what he wanted to do with the fax
machines. He asked me to show him. I recall the door closed behind us and he said
“imagine what people would think when we come out of this cupboard”.
Colleague A’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She stated that Mr
Mhindurwa would ask her to have the door closed even though there was an open door
policy and that she did what she was asked to do. She said she felt claustrophobic and
stressed at work. Regarding the incident in the store cupboard Colleague A described
being trapped with Mr Mhindurwa blocking the only exit. She was concerned that her
personal alarm would not work in the cupboard and that no one knew where she had
gone.
The panel preferred the account of Colleague A who it considered a credible and reliable
witness. It found her account to be detailed and consistent in her written and oral evidence
and in the local investigation. The panel determined that it was more likely than not that Mr
Mhindurwa told Colleague A that staff thought she was going into his office to ‘get off with
him’ or words to that effect and the he said “Imagine what people would think when we
come out of this cupboard”. The panel therefore found charge 1f and 1g proved.
Charge 1h
18
h) Showed Colleague A a photograph on your phone which was an image of you
wearing a sleeveless top and pyjama trousers, or similar
These charges are found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A and Mr
Mhindurwa’s responses.
At the local investigation Mr Mhindurwa stated that he never showed Colleague A any
photographs of himself. He said that he showed a staff member a photo of himself in front
of patients, but that was in workout clothing – not pyjamas. Mr Mhindurwa was certain that
he had never shown Colleague A a photograph of himself on his phone.
Colleague A said in her statement “There was another time in which [Mr Mhindurwa]
showed me photographs on his phone of him just wearing a sleeveless top and pyjama
trousers”.
In Colleague A’s local witness statement she wrote “He then mention my clothes and
asked what I where(sic) at the weekend. I advised something usually more comfortable
than work wear. He mentioned that he wears Pyjamas and then he showed me pictures of
himself on his phone in his pyjamas”.
Colleague A’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She told the panel
that she can still see the image and its not an image she wants to see. When asked why
she thinks Mr Mhindurwa showed her this photograph she said she thinks he might have
wanted a reaction but she did not understand what his train of thought was and it made
her feel very uncomfortable.
The panel preferred the account of Colleague A who it considered a credible and reliable
witness. It found her account to be detailed and consistent in her written and oral evidence
19
and in the local investigation. The panel determined that it was more likely than not that Mr
Mhindurwa had shown Colleague A a photograph of him wearing a sleeveless top and
pyjama trousers or something similar. The panel therefore found charge 1h proved.
Charge 2a
In respect of Colleague B
Asked Colleague B why she had shown you her underwear the previous day, or
words to that effect
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague B and Mr
Mhindurwa’s responses.
Colleague B’s witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] would call me into his office. He said
“Why did I show my underwear yesterday”.
In Colleague B’s local statement she detailed “[Mr Mhindurwa] stated “why did you seduce
me the other day” I stated “I don’t get what you mean”, then again stated “you pulled your
skirt up in front of me the other day”, I replied “like I said was wearing trousers that day,
and this isn’t a very professional conversation”.
Colleague B’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She told the panel
that she had not shown Mr Mhindurwa her underwear the day before he asked her this.
When asked in the local investigation Mrs Mhindurwa agreed that he asked Colleague B
the question.
20
The panel found Colleague B to be a credible and reliable witness. It found her written and
oral accounts to be broadly consistent. It therefore accepted her evidence. It accepted that
Mr Mhindurwa did not appear to dispute that he had asked Colleague B this question. The
panel determined that it was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa asked Colleague B
why she had shown him her underwear. The panel therefore found charge 2b proved.
Charge 2b
Took a lollipop from the mouth of Colleague B and placed it in your own mouth
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague B and Mr
Mhindurwa.
In the local investigation interview Mr Mhindurwa stated that Colleague B would eat
lollipops in the office which he found unprofessional. He said he would never eat that
sweet food and he had never taken a lollipop from Colleague B.
Colleague B said in her witness statement “I had a lollipop in my mouth. I went to speak
with a managerial lead and she had her back towards me in the room. I cannot recall her
name. [Mr Mhindurwa] came in and took the lollipop out of my mouth and put it in his
mouth”. In her local statement she wrote “I was eating a sweet lolly pop, [Mr Mhindurwa]
called me out of my office and asked me into a separate office where another colleague
the lolly out of my mouth, out it in his and walked out of the office”.
Colleague B’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. Her evidence was
that he was flirting and made her feel dirty
Having found Colleague B to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel preferred Colleague A’s account to Mr Mhindurwa’s. The panel
21
determined that it was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa had taken a lollipop from
the mouth of Colleague B and placed it in his own mouth. The panel therefore found
charge 2b proved.
Charge 2c
Said to Colleague B “That’s a shame I thought we could have a bottle of wine at
mine and chill for the weekend”, or words to that effect
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague B and Mr
Mhindurwa.
Colleague B said in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] asked me what I was doing at
the weekend. I told him that I would be relaxing at home. He said “that’s a shame I thought
we could have a bottle of wine at mine and chill for the weekend”.
In her local statement, Colleague B wrote “[Mr Mhindurwa] called me on my office phone
and asked me to go to his office [Mr Mhindurwa] then asked “what are we doing this
Friday?” I stated “well we will be working as usual” he then asked then asked “what are we
doing this weekend?” I stated “I will be relaxing at home” he then asked “what wine do you
drink?” at this point I said “I thought you called me into your office to discuss engagement
and observation forms?” I then walked out of the office”.
Mr Mhindurwa was not asked about these allegations in the local investigation nor does he
refer to them in his reflective statement.
Having found Colleague B to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel accepted Colleague B’s evidence. The panel determined that it was
more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa said to Colleague B “That’s a shame I thought we
22
could have a bottle of wine at mine and chill for the weekend”, or words to that effect. The
panel therefore found charge 2c proved.
Charge 2d
Said to Colleague B “It’s not just my car that is big”, or words to that effect, in a
sexually suggestive manner
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account Colleague B and Mr Mhindurwa’s
evidence.
Mr Mhindurwa’s said in his local investigation “After being reminded of some of the detail
of the allegation, [Mr Mhindurwa] did remember a conversation about his car and
reference to the size of it. [Mr Mhindurwa] said that it was [Colleague B] who first
mentioned his car and commented on the size of it. [Mr Mhindurwa] replied by saying that
he preferred big cars. As far as [Mr Mhindurwa] was concerned the conversation was
simply about cars – there was no innuendo. [Mr Mhindurwa’s] recollection is that [a
colleague] from the admin office was also present”.
Colleague B said her witness statement “I was downstairs taking the rubbish out with a
colleague… [The colleague] was at the door holding the door open. [Mr Mhindurwa] was
outside and asked “Do you like my car”. I said “it’s a big car”. [Mr Mhindurwa] said “Its not
just my car that is big. He was making reference to his genitalia which made me feel very
uncomfortable” In the local investigation Colleague B stated “I and a fellow colleague was
walking down to the communal bin area, we met [Mr Mhindurwa] on the stairs, he walked
with us and followed us out the doors, and he then asked “do you like my car?” I stated
“it’s a bit too big for me” he then stated “I’m not that big if you know what I mean”.
23
Colleague B’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She was clear to
the panel that this was a sexual remark and that Mr Mhindurwa was talking about his
genitalia not about the size of his car.
Having found Colleague B to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel preferred Colleague B’s account to Mr Mhindurwa’s. The panel
determined that it was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa said to Colleague B “It’s not
just my car that is big”, or words to that effect. The panel was also satisfied that Mr
Mhindurwa has said this in a sexually suggestive manner. The panel therefore found
charge 2d proved.
Charge 3a
In respect of Colleague C
a) On one or more occasions came into the office of Colleague C without business
or clinical justification
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C and Mr
Mhindurwa.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “I wouldn’t need to have that much involvement
with a Hospital Manager apart from meetings etc. He would linger around my office and in
my office. He would let himself into my office and there was no reason for him to be there.
I would ask him often if I could help him with something and he would say no just making
sure everything is ok”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She said that she
felt very intimidated. She said that Mr Mhindurwa would smirk at her and made her feel
24
very uncomfortable. She said there was no reason for Mr Mhindurwa to come into her
office to check everything was okay, he could have emailed. She said he would let himself
in to her office a couple of times a day and he would stand too close to her.
The panel found Colleague C to be a credible witness with detailed and consistent
accounts of this incident, it therefore accepted her account. The panel determined that it
was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa came into Colleague C’s office without
business or clinical justification. The panel therefore found charge 3a proved.
Charge 3b
b) Commented in a meeting that Colleague C reminded you of someone that
wants to make him fall asleep and pretended to be asleep
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C and Mr
Mhindurwa.
In Colleague C’s witness statement she said “During the meeting he made a comment and
said I reminded him of someone that wants to make him fall asleep. He tried to imitate
being asleep. He was expecting people to find this funny but they didn’t”. The record of the
local interview stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] said that she reminded him of one of those boring
people in meetings who make him feel like falling asleep. [Mr Mhindurwa] then mimicked
snoring”.
The record of the local investigation interview stated “[Colleague C] explained that she first
met [Mr Mhindurwa] in a staff meeting, and her first experience of him was not a positive
one. [Colleague C] described [Mr Mhindurwa] as being rude to staff in the meeting and
came across as ‘egotistical’. After [Colleague C] had made a contribution in the meeting
[Mr Mhindurwa] asked if she could guess who she reminded him of. When [Colleague C]
25
said that she couldn’t, [Mr Mhindurwa] said that she reminded him of one of those boring
people in meetings who make him feel like falling asleep. [Mr Mhindurwa] then mimicked
snoring. Another colleague joined the meeting and made a contribution to which [Mr
Mhindurwa] replied “you are just like her” (indicating [Colleague C]) and pretended to
snore again”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was detailed and consistent with the written evidence. She
said that she felt humiliated, shocked and upset by Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour in the
meeting.
The record of investigation interview with Mr Mhindurwa stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] said that
he would not have been in a meeting with Colleague C and never used language like “you
are boring me” or “you are sending me to sleep”. [Mr Mhindurwa] simply didn’t recognise
that account of his behaviour and denied it had happened”.
Having found Colleague C to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel preferred her evidence to Mr Mhindurwa’s. The panel determined that it
was more likely than not that Mr Mhindurwa commented in a meeting that Colleague C
reminded him of someone that wants to make him fall asleep and pretended to be asleep.
The panel therefore found charge 3b proved.
Charge 3c, 3d and 3e
c) Asked Colleague C about her partner
d) Asked Colleague C whether she was happy in her relationship
e) Suggested to Colleague C that if she was not happy in her relationship maybe
she should try going out with him
These charges are found proved.
26
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C and Mr
Mhindurwa.
Colleague C said in her witness statement to the NMC “On the way to a ward, he asked
about my partner. I don’t recall the date. He also asked if I was happy in my relationship
and if I wasn’t then I should try going out with other people and then there was a pause
and he said and then maybe I should try going out with him. It was a really awkward
conversation”.
The record of Colleague C’s Investigation interview stated “When [Colleague C] and [Mr
Mhindurwa] were alone, [Mr Mhindurwa] asked her if she was happy with her partner and
said that if she wasn’t totally happy with him then she could try going out with [Mr
Mhindurwa].
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with the written evidence. She said Mr
Mhindurwa started asking her personal questions about her relationship, whether she was
happy or not and she thought it was unprofessional. She said she thought Mr Mhindurwa
was attracted to her on a personal level.
Having found Colleague C to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel accepted her evidence. The panel determined that it was more likely
than not that Mr Mhindurwa asked questions about Colleague’s C relationship and
suggested to her that if she was not happy in her relationship maybe she should try going
out with him. The panel therefore found charge 3c, 3d and 3e proved.
Charge 3f
f) On one or more occasions you looked at the chest of Colleague C and looked
her up and down
This charge is found proved.
27
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “When he would talk to me, he would look at
my chest and then look up and then down and up and down. It was obvious that he was
looking at my chest”
The record of Colleague C’s local investigation interview stated “[Colleague C] felt that he
[Mr Mhindurwa] would invade her personal space by standing too close to her, comment
on her physical appearance and that his gaze would often be focused on her chest or
figure when he was speaking to her”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with the written evidence. She said Mr
Mhindurwa was always looking at her chest, he was creepy and made her feel
uncomfortable. She also said that she thought Mr Mhindurwa was a sexual predator.
Colleague B also made reference to Mr Mhindurwa staring at female members of staff.
Her investigation interview states “[Colleague B] was often aware of Mr Mhindurwa
obviously looking at her body and the bodies of other women in the office”.
Mr Mhindurwa was not asked about these allegations in the local investigation nor does he
refer to them in his reflective statement.
Having found Colleague C to be a credible witness with consistent accounts of this
incident, the panel accepted her evidence. The panel determined that it was more likely
than not that Mr Mhindurwa looked at Colleague C’s chest and looked her up and down.
The panel therefore found charge 3f proved.
Charge 3g
g) Said to Colleague C, “I’ve got a big black one for you in my car”, or words to that
effect, in a sexually suggestive manner
28
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
The record of Mr Mhindurwa’s local interview stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] explained that he
had branded stationary (including pens) with the details of his limited company on them.
[Mr Mhindurwa] said that gave these pens to lots of people and will have given them to
[Colleague C] at some point. [Mr Mhindurwa] said that he knew nurses couldn’t use blue
ink at work so may have offered [Colleague C] black ones instead. [Mr Mhindurwa] was
very clear that he did not treat [Colleague C] any differently to other staff by giving her
pens, and that any suggestion that this behaviour was flirtatious or inappropriate was a
complete misreading of an innocent gesture”.
Colleague C said in her witness statement to the NMC “… he told us about a consultancy
firm he had. I cannot recall the date. He pulled a pen out of his top pocket and he said he
has loads of these pens in his car. He said that “its my consultancy firm”. I said oh, ok, well
done. He said I’ve got a big black one for you in my car. I was uncomfortable and felt
disgusted”
Colleague C’s Record of interview stated “[Colleague C] also talked about an example of
[Mr Mhindurwa] leaving some blue pens on her desk as a ‘gift’. Apparently, [Mr
Mhindurwa] was known for giving “special pens” to people. As a registered nurse,
[Colleague C] could not use blue pens but [Mr Mhindurwa] had also left a note to the effect
of “if you would prefer a black one, I have one in the car if you would like to come down
and get it.” [Colleague C] was in no doubt that this was a sexual innuendo relating to the
fact that [Mr Mhindurwa] is a black man and was clear that an offer to go to his car was a
sexual advance”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with the written evidence.
29
The panel preferred the evidence of Colleague C. It found her oral and written evidence to
be credible and consistent. The panel does not accept Mr Mhindurwa’s explanation of the
conversation. The panel determined that it was more likely than not that he used this
sexually suggestive language toward Colleague C. The panel therefore found charge 3g
proved.
Charge 3h
h) Gestured to Colleague C that you were watching her by pointing at her from
your eyes
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
The record of Mr Mhindurwa’s local investigation interview stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] said
that this didn’t happen and he could not imagine why he would ever have spoken to
somebody that way. In the face to face interview [Mr Mhindurwa] was able to reproduce a
commonly used gesture (pointing to the eyes and then to another person) but said that it
was not a gesture he used personally”.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “As he walked across the front of the lounge,
he was looking at me. He was pointing at me from his eyes, like he’s watching me. I didn’t
understand what this meant”.
The record of Colleague C’s local investigation interview stated “After leaving the ward on
one occasion, [Mr Mhindurwa] turned back to [Colleague C] and said “I’m watching you
and made a gesture by pointing to his eyes and then at her”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with the written evidence. Colleague C said
that Mr Mhindurwa was walking across the lounge and looked back at her watching her
30
and made an intimidating gesture with his fingers. She said that Mr Mhindurwa watching
her was predatory and made her feel uncomfortable.
The panel preferred the evidence of Colleague C. It found her oral and written evidence to
be detailed, credible and consistent. The panel did not accept Mr Mhindurwa’s explanation
of the conversation. The panel determined that it was more likely than not that Mr
Mhindurwa gestured to Colleague C that he was watching her by pointing at her from his
eyes. The panel therefore found charge 3h proved.
Charge 3i
i) During a telephone conversation concerning authorisation to book agency staff
you asked Colleague C to go out with you at the weekend
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] answered the phone and I
recall there was a lot of music on in the background. I couldn’t hear, so asked if he could
turn the music down a little. He said don’t be like that, I’m having a party. I said I needed to
hear what you’re saying, can I have authorisation. He said why don’t you come over, then
asked if I would go out with him at the weekend”.
The record of Colleague C’s local investigation interview stated “In addition to all of this on
one occasional when I was hospital coordinator on a Sunday evening [Mr Mhindurwa] was
on call and I needed to call him about securing nurses for mon through to thurs that week
due to sickness of staff and that was the new protocol. During the call [Mr Mhindurwa]
seemed to be intoxicated and there was loud music in the background I explained my
professional request and [Mr Mhindurwa] was all playful in his language and verbal
31
conversation- he stated just wait there I’ll ask … ([PRIVATE] [Mr Mhindurwa’s] boss as I
am here at a party with him – you can come over when you have finished work if you like.
This made me more uncomfortable and I became very stressed and anxious at work
ot(sic) was at this point I didn’t want to be at work any longer due to the fear of seeing him.
Another occasion is that he used to catch me after morning meetings on the stair well
whilst I was alone and confront me with sexual innuendo’s(sic)”.
This was consistent with Colleague C’s oral evidence. She was clear from her oral
evidence that Mr Mhindurwa was trying to leverage his position to get Colleague C to
socialise with him.
The panel accepted the evidence of Colleague C. It found her oral and written evidence to
be detailed, credible and consistent. The panel determined that it was more likely than not
that during a telephone conversation concerning authorisation to book agency staff Mr
Mhindurwa asked Colleague C to go out with him at the weekend. The panel therefore
found charge 3i proved.
Charge 3j
Suggested to Colleague C that you would be able to get her the job of her
manager who was off sick
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] would say that he could get
my manager [Manager]’s.. job as she was off sick. I told him you don’t know when she
may be coming back. He said he would sort it out”.
32
The record of Colleague C’s local interview stated “[Colleague C] described [Mr
Mhindurwa’s] behaviour whilst the ward manager [Manager] was away from work on sick
leave. [Mr Mhindurwa] stood very close to [Colleague C] and said “I’m going to get that job
for you”. [Colleague C] replied that they didn’t know what would happen with the ward
manager role as [Manager] may be coming back and [Mr Mhindurwa] said “it doesn’t
matter and that he would sort it out”.
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with the written evidence. She said Mr
Mhindurwa had told her how well she was doing and wanted to talk to me about getting
the manager’s job. When she said that she was not interested he said “Come on you know
you’d be good at it”.
Mr Mhindurwa was not asked about these allegations in the local investigation. He said in
his reflective statement that he promoted Colleague C [PRIVATE].
The panel accepted the evidence of Colleague C. It found her oral and written evidence to
be detailed, credible and consistent. The panel determined that it was more likely than not
that Mr Mhindurwa suggested to Colleague C that he would be able to get her the job of
her manager who was off sick. The panel therefore found charge 3j proved.
Charge 3k and 3l
k) On one or more occasions you stood too close to Colleague C
l) On one or more occasions you gazed at the chest of Colleague C
These charges are found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C stated in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] would stand too close. Gaze
often on my chest. This was multiple times. I wear formal work wear and wouldn’t have
33
been suggestive in any way. His behaviour was flirtatious and creepy. When he would
come into the office, he would come right behind my chair. He would be really close to me.
When speaking with him, he would walk and come really close. I would need to step
back”.
This was consistent with Colleague C’s oral evidence. She recalled that her desk was in
the corner and Mr Mhindurwa was standing too close and she had to move her chair. She
said Mr Mhindurwa was always looking at her chest.
The record of Colleague C’s local investigation interview “Although there was no physical
contact, [Colleague C] felt that he would invade her personal space by standing too close
to her, comment on her physical appearance and that his gaze would often be focussed
on her chest or figure when he was speaking to her. This behaviour made [Colleague C]
feel stressed and unwell”.
The panel accepted the evidence of Colleague C. It found her oral and written evidence to
be detailed, credible and consistent. The panel determined that it was more likely than not
that on one or more occasions Mr Mhindurwa stood too close to Colleague C and gazed at
her chest. The panel therefore found charges 3k and 3l proved.
Charge 4
And your conduct as specified in Charge 1 d) and/or e) and/or f) and/or g) and/or h)
was sexually motivated in that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship
with Colleague A
This charge is found not proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A.
34
Colleague A said in her witness statement “There were a few sexual remarks which he
made which I found to be extremely upsetting and uncomfortable”. She also stated “[Mr
Mhindurwa] was extremely flirtatious and inappropriate almost every day. I felt
uncomfortable and didn’t want to be harassed at work. For some reason I thought it was
because of my appearance”.
Colleague A said in her oral evidence that she felt afraid and felt that she could not argue
with what Mr Mhindurwa wanted. She said she felt stressed mentally because she did not
know what was going to happen each day. However, when asked what she thought was
the reason for Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour she said she did not know.
Although inappropriate and sexually motivated, the panel did not consider that Mr
Mhindurwa’s behaviour in charges 1d – h was sexually motivated to the extent that he
intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with Colleague A. It acknowledged the
negative effect that his behaviour had on Colleague A.
The panel was of the view that Mr Mhindurwa demonstrated behaviour with the intention
to intimidate and control Colleague A. It determined that Mr Mhindurwa wanted to make
Colleague A do what he wanted by exerting his power, influence and authority on her,
someone who described herself as vulnerable. However, it did not have sufficient
evidence to determine that his behaviour towards Colleague A was sexually motivated in
that he intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with her. The panel therefore found
charge 4 not proved.
Charge 5
And your conduct as specified in Charge 1 d) and/or e) and/or f) and/or g) and/or h)
amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague A
This charge is found proved.
35
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague A.
The panel considered the NMC guidance in respect of harassment including sexual
harassment:
“Harassment is defined by the Equality Act 2010 as someone engaging in
unwanted conduct that’s related to a protected characteristic or is of a sexual
nature. The behaviour has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or
creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
It’s necessary to take the perception of the person who’s the subject of the conduct
and any other circumstances into account. As well as harassment linked to a
protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act, harassment can also be
unwanted conduct that is unrelated to a protected characteristic which someone
finds offensive or which makes someone feel intimidated or humiliated”.
The panel accepted the submission of Mr Sanghera and the advice of the legal assessor
that the High Court decision in the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and
Social Care v (1)Health and Care Professions Council (2) Leonard Ren-Ye Yong [2021]
EWHC 52 (Admin) was relevant in this case. The panel took into account that the NMC is
a “public authority” within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Accordingly, the definition
of sexual harassment within Section 26 of that Act is applicable to this case;
“26 Harassment
(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected
characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment for B.
(2) A also harasses B if—
36
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and Judgment
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each
of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5) The relevant protected characteristics are—
…sex;…”
The panel took into account the effect on Colleague A of Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour
towards her. Colleague A said in her witness statement that Mr Mhindurwa was “verbally
threatening” and “I did feel threatened by [Mr Mhindurwa]. He told me on occasion if I
wasn’t happy then he would find someone to replace me. I would say [Mr Mhindurwa]
used threatening language most days. He would often talk down to colleagues in front of
the whole office and threaten them with their jobs”. She also stated “There were a few
sexual remarks which he made which I found to be extremely upsetting and
uncomfortable”.
Colleague A said she felt that she was experiencing panic attacks going into work
because she felt so stressed about Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour towards her. With regards
to her appearance, she told the panel that she had loved her previously long hair and that
since he commented on it so much and she felt so violated that she felt she had no option
but to cut it off and change hair colour to make the attention from him stop. She said she
could not go back to being blonde because of this experience.
The panel also took into account the evidence of Ms 1 who stated “I do remember her
[Colleague A] saying that she felt incredibly uncomfortable around the Registrant and did
not want to come into the office because of this and his behaviour. [Colleague A] also felt
scared”.
37
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour toward Colleague A was unwanted
and he intended to violate her dignity and created an intimidating, humiliating and
offensive environment. The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa appeared to single out
Colleague A because she was vulnerable and he used his power to intimidate and
influence her.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour found proved in charges 1d-h,
individually and cumulatively, amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague A. It therefore
found charge 5 proved.
Charge 6
And your conduct as specified in Charge 2 a) and/or b) and/or c) and/or d) was
sexually motivated in that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with
Colleague B
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague B.
The panel took into account that it had found charges 2a – d proved.
Colleague B said in her witness statement “I definitely felt like [Mr Mhindurwa] was
pursuing me. He was very flirtatious. It was certainly not banter. The things he would say,
it was more than banter and to me he was flirting. The impression I got is that he was in a
high position and he could have anybody(sic) to have sexual relations with anyone he
wanted”.
The record of the local investigation interview stated “[Colleague B] was very clear that [Mr
Mhindurwa] was playing a game and being deliberately suggestive. [Colleague B] went as
38
far as using the term “sexual predator” to describe [Mr Mhindurwa] and was in no doubt
that he was attempting to initiate a sexual encounter”.
The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa’s comments about Colleague B’s underwear,
sharing a bottle of wine with him at his place on the weekend and the innuendo about his
‘big car’ were suggestive and sexually motivated. It also considered that Mr Mhindurwa
taking a lollipop out of Colleague B’s mouth and placing it in his own mouth was an
intimate action, suggestive and sexually motivated.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour in charges 2a – d was sexually
motivated in that her intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with Colleague B.
The panel therefore found charge 6 proved.
Charge 7
And your conduct as specified in Charge 2 a) and/or b) and/or c) and/or d)
amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague B
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague B.
Colleague B said in her witness statement “He was making reference to his genitalia
which made me feel very uncomfortable” and “Generally, [Mr Mhindurwa] would close his
office door when speaking with me… it made me feel very uncomfortable”. Colleague B
also stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] made me feel really uncomfortable and I felt like I couldn’t
work with him anymore due to his behaviour. I felt like it was impacting my work. I would
often stay later in the office but couldn’t do this anymore at the risk of [Mr Mhindurwa]
being there. I didn’t feel safe. I didn’t want to be on my own with him. It made me think it
was me, or I was doing something wrong”.
39
Colleague B was consistent in her oral evidence about the harassment she experienced
from Mr Mhindurwa. She said that Mr Mhindurwa did not take no for an answer in his
pursuit of her. She described him as a sexual predator.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour toward Colleague B was unwanted
and he intended to violate her dignity and created an intimidating, humiliating and
offensive environment. It determined that Mr Mhindurwa wanted to pursue a sexual
relationship with Colleague B and would exert his power and authority on her to that end.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour found proved in charges 2a – d,
individually and cumulatively, amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague B. It therefore
found charge 7 proved.
Charge 8
And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) was sexually motivated in
that you intended to pursue a future sexual relationship with Colleague C
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C said in her witness statement “[Mr Mhindurwa] would stand too close. Gaze
often on my chest. This was multiple times. I wear formal work wear and wouldn’t have
been suggestive in any way. His behaviour was flirtatious and creepy” and “I believe [Mr
Mhindurwa] was a sexual predator and was pursuing me. His actions were inappropriate
for the workplace and could not be classified as banter or joking. The way he would look at
me and size me up would make me cringe”.
40
Colleague C’s oral evidence was consistent with her written evidence. She said that Mr
Mhindurwa was always looking at her chest. She said she believed he was a sexual
predator and wanted to make her feel uncomfortable. She told the panel that he made her
feel awful, humiliated shocked and upset. She said she thought he was interested in her
on a personal level and was trying to find out about her personal life.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa invaded Colleague C’s personal space and
looked at her inappropriately. He asked about her relationship and suggested that she
should try going out with him and made other inappropriate comments. In the panel’s view
Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour can only be described as sexually motivated.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour in charges 3a, 3c – 3l was
suggestive and sexually motivated in that he intended to pursue a future sexual
relationship with Colleague C. The panel therefore found charge 8 proved.
Charge 9
And your conduct as specified in Charge 3 a) and/or c) and/or d) and/or e) and/or f)
and/or g) and/or h) and/or i) and/or j) and/or k) and/or l) amounted to sexual
harassment of Colleague C
This charge is found proved.
In reaching this decision, the panel took into account the evidence of Colleague C.
Colleague C stated in her witness statement “The atmosphere was really uncomfortable”,
and “I would always have a knot in my stomach and I would feel sick coming into work”.
She also stated “I felt threatened and uneasy around him”.
The record of Colleague C’s local interview stated “[Colleague C] felt that he [Mr
Mhindurwa] would invade her personal space by standing too close to her, comment on
41
her physical appearance and that his gaze would often be focused on her chest or figure
when he was speaking to her. This behaviour made [Colleague C] feel stressed and
unwell”.
This was consistent with Colleague C’s oral evidence. She said she found everything Mr
Mhindurwa did was predatory and grooming.
Mr Mhindurwa’s stated in his reflective piece “On retrospect I should have a few members
from other [Hospital] Units deployed to help me during the transformation period and also
to dilute the toxic culture. In attempt to ease the situation I was too friendly with staff, but
others mistook my openness and friendliness for sexual innuendos thereby wrongly
interpreting my kindness for sexual moves. On the other hand task orientation and the
desire to achieve KPIs and stipulated targets under tight deadlines from the regulatory and
commissioning bodies made me to concentrate more on task and negated the fact that I
was dealing with junior staff not well equipped/trained to embrace the required
transformation(sic)”.
The record of interview stated “[Mr Mhindurwa] explained that the manager he replaced
was “invisible” and stayed in his office. Given the serious situation at [the Hospital], [Mr
Mhindurwa] wanted to be very visible and bring some energy to the team. This meant he
did try and talk to people and have a positive motivational impact. [Mr Mhindurwa’s] view
is that some of this may have been misinterpreted (as people weren’t used to it) and when
combined with the threat to their jobs that they saw from [Mr Mhindurwa] this has resulted
in false allegations being made”.
The panel rejected Mr Mhindurwa’s explanation that his behaviour was misinterpreted by
his colleagues. Colleague C said his behaviour could not be kindness that had been
misinterpreted. She said it was direct interaction which was sexually related and made her
feel humiliated and uncomfortable with control and power in the body language.
42
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour toward Colleague C was unwanted,
and he intended to violate her dignity and create an intimidating, humiliating and offensive
environment. It determined that Mr Mhindurwa wanted to pursue a sexual relationship with
Colleague C and would exert his power and authority on her to that end.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour found proved in charges 3a, 3c – 3l,
individually and collectively, amounted to sexual harassment of Colleague C. It therefore
found charge 9 proved.
Fitness to practise
Having reached its determination on the facts of this case, the panel then moved on to
consider, whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct and, if so, whether Mr
Mhindurwa’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. There is no statutory definition of
fitness to practise. However, the NMC has defined fitness to practise as a registrant’s
suitability to remain on the register unrestricted.
The panel, in reaching its decision, has recognised its statutory duty to protect the public
and maintain public confidence in the profession. Further, it bore in mind that there is no
burden or standard of proof at this stage and it has therefore exercised its own
professional judgement.
The panel adopted a two-stage process in its consideration. First, the panel must
determine whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct. Secondly, only if the
facts found proved amount to misconduct, the panel must decide whether, in all the
circumstances, Mr Mhindurwa’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a result of that
misconduct.
Submissions on misconduct
43
In coming to its decision, the panel had regard to the case of Roylance v General Medical
Council (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 which defines misconduct as a ‘word of general effect,
involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the
circumstances.’
Mr Sanghera invited the panel to take the view that the facts found proved amount to
misconduct. He referred the panel to the terms of ‘The Code: Professional standards of
practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives (2015)’ (the Code) and identified the
specific, relevant standards where the NMC consider Mr Mhindurwa’s actions amounted to
misconduct.
Mr Sanghera submitted that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct was not isolated and occurred over
a number of months and occurred despite much of his conduct being unwanted. He
submitted that a significant proportion of Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct was sexually motivated
and amounted to sexual harassment.
Mr Sanghera submitted that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct fell significantly and seriously short
of what was expected in the circumstances and so both individually and collectively does
amount to serious misconduct.
Submissions on impairment
Mr Sanghera moved on to the issue of impairment and addressed the panel on the need
to have regard to protecting the public and the wider public interest. This included the
need to declare and maintain proper standards and maintain public confidence in the
profession and in the NMC as a regulatory body. This included reference to the case of
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) and
Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin).
Mr Sanghera submitted that the first three limbs of the Dame Janet Smith test are
engaged, from both a past and forward-looking perspective. He submitted that Mr
44
Mhindurwa’s conduct had the potential to put patients at unwarranted risk of harm
because his conduct left his colleagues feeling that they no longer wanted to come into
work. Therefore, Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct had the potential to leave the hospital short
staffed and patients without care. Mr Sanghera submitted that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct
was sexually motivated and amounted to sexual harassment of colleagues. It, therefore,
brought the nursing profession into disrepute. Mr Sanghera submitted that Mr Mhindurwa
had breached a significant number of different provisions of the NMC’s Code and so had
breached fundamental tenets of the nursing profession.
Mr Sanghera submitted that Mr Mhindurwa remains liable to put patients at unwarranted
risk of harm, to bring the profession into disrepute and to breach fundamental tenets of the
profession. He submitted that Mr Mhindurwa has shown limited and insufficient insight and
remorse. Mr Mhindurwa has not attended the hearing and has not given any evidence on
oath to the panel. In cases of serious misconduct, a panel should expect to see
comprehensive insight, remorse and strengthened practice from an early stage which
addresses the specific concerns raised. For the reasons set out above, Mr Mhindurwa has
not shown those essential elements and so there remains a real risk of repetition which
carries with it serious risk of significant harm.
Mr Sanghera therefore invited the panel to find Mr Mhindurwa’s fitness to practise
currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.
The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor which included reference to a number
of relevant judgments. This included: Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317
(Admin).
Decision and reasons on misconduct
When determining whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct, the panel had
regard to the terms of the Code.
45
The panel was of the view that Mr Mhindurwa actions did fall significantly short of the
standards expected of a registered nurse, particularly one acting in a responsible position
as interim hospital manager, and that his actions amounted to breaches of the Code.
Specifically:
“9.3 deal with differences of professional opinion with colleagues by discussion and
informed debate, respecting their views and opinions and behaving in a
professional way at all times
Promote professionalism and trust
You uphold the reputation of your profession at all times. You should display a
personal commitment to the standards of practice and behaviour set out in the
Code. You should be a model of integrity and leadership for others to
aspire to. This should lead to trust and confidence in the professions from patients,
people receiving care, other health and care professionals and the public.
20 Uphold the reputation of your profession at all times
To achieve this, you must:
20.1 keep to and uphold the standards and values set out in the Code
20.2 act with honesty and integrity at all times, treating people fairly and without
discrimination, bullying or harassment
20.3 be aware at all times of how your behaviour can affect and influence the
behaviour of other people
20.5 treat people in a way that does not take advantage of their vulnerability or
cause them upset or distress
20.10 use all forms of spoken, written and digital communication (including social
media and networking sites) responsibly, respecting the right to privacy of others at
all times”
The panel appreciated that breaches of the Code do not automatically result in a finding of
misconduct.
46
In relation to charge 1a- 1h involving Colleague A, the panel first considered the charges
individually. It considered that some of the conduct found proved was not serious enough
to amount to misconduct taken in isolation. The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa’s
comments and questions about Colleague A’s appearance and him showing Colleague A
a photo of himself in pyjama trousers could not be considered deplorable. The panel
therefore determined that the conduct displayed at charges 1d, 1e and 1h was not serious
enough to amount to misconduct individually.
However, the panel was of the view that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct at charges 1a, 1b, 1c, 1f
and 1g was serious and amounted to misconduct. Mr Mhindurwa used his position of
power as interim hospital manager and displayed a pattern of threatening behaviour and
sexual harassment towards Colleague A which was sustained over a period of time. It
considered that he used body language and verbal language to intimidate and control
Colleague A to get her to do as he wanted which impacted negatively on Colleague A.
Whilst it found that some individual elements of charge 1 did not amount to misconduct,
the panel found that Mr Mhindurwa’s actions at charge 1, collectively, fell seriously short of
the conduct and standards expected of a nurse and amounted to misconduct.
In relation to charge 2a – 2d involving Colleague B, the panel considered all of the conduct
displayed by Mr Mhindurwa at each charge individually and collectively was serious. Mr
Mhindurwa used his position of power as interim hospital manager and displayed a pattern
of degrading behaviour and sexual harassment towards Colleague B which was sustained
over a period of time. The panel had found Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct to be sexually
motivated. He acted inappropriately by taking a lollipop out of Colleague B’s mouth and
putting it in to his own and used sexual innuendos and comments towards her with the
intention of pursuing a future sexual relationship with her. Colleague B told the panel that
his advances had made her feel uncomfortable and ‘dirty’. The panel therefore found that
all Mr Mhindurwa’s actions at charge 2, fell seriously short of the conduct and standards
expected of a nurse and amounted to misconduct.
47
In relation to charge 3a – 3l involving Colleague C, the panel first considered each of the
charges individually. It considered that some of the conduct was not serious enough to
amount to misconduct. The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct by
coming into Colleague C’s office without business (3a) and by standing too close to her
(3k) was inappropriate but could not be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners and
did not amount to misconduct. It also considered that asking Colleague C about her
partner (3c) and whether she was happy in her relationship (3d) was again inappropriate
but not serious enough to amount to misconduct. The panel considered that Mr
Mhindurwa gesturing to Colleague C that he was watching her by pointing at her from your
eyes (1h) was inappropriate behaviour but was not serious enough to amount to
misconduct. Finally, the panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa suggesting to Colleague C
that he would be able to get her the job of her manager who was off sick (3j) was not so
serious as to amount to misconduct individually.
However, the panel was of the view that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct at charges 3b, 3e, 3f,
3g, 3i, and 3l fell seriously short of the conduct and standards expected of a nurse and
amounted to misconduct. The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa’s behaviour in the
meeting by pretending to be asleep (3b) was bullying and was intended to intimidate and
humiliate Colleague C. The panel found Mr Mhindurwa’s other conduct to be serious and
sexually motivated. He acted inappropriately by suggesting to Colleague C that if she was
not happy in her relationship maybe she should try going out with him (3e). He also made
comments which were sexually suggestive towards Colleague C (3g) and gazed at her
chest (3l) with the intention of pursuing a future sexual relationship with her. Finally, the
panel considered that during a telephone conversation concerning authorisation to book
agency staff (3i) Mr Mhindurwa used his position of power as the interim hospital manager
as leverage to try and get Colleague C to go out with him. The panel found this charge
particularly concerning as by denying authorisation for agency staff, in the circumstances
within which this incident occurred, Mr Mhindurwa potentially put patients at risk of harm.
The panel determined that Mr Mhindurwa displayed a pattern of degrading behaviour and
sexual harassment towards Colleague C which was sustained over a period of time. It
48
considered that Mr Mhindurwa behaved in a way that made Colleague C feel violated,
shocked and upset and he used behaviour to bully and intimidate her. Whilst it found that
some individual elements of charge 3 did not amount to misconduct, the panel found that
Mr Mhindurwa’s actions at charge 3, collectively, fell seriously short of the conduct and
standards expected of a nurse, particularly in the position he held within the hospital, and
amounted to misconduct.
The panel went on to consider misconduct in respect of charges 5, 6, 7 ,8 and 9.
The panel considered that charges 5, 7 and 9 involving the sexual harassment of
Colleagues A, B and C was a serious departure from the conduct and standards expected
of a registered nurse and was conduct that would be considered deplorable by fellow
practitioners.
The panel considered that charges 6 and 8 in relation to Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct being
sexually motivated in that he intended to pursue future sexual relationships with Colleague
B and Colleague C was a serious departure from the conduct and standards expected of a
registered nurse and was conduct that would be considered deplorable by fellow
practitioners.
The panel bore in mind the written evidence from Mr Mhindurwa that his openness and
friendliness was wrongly interpreted for sexual moves. The panel rejected Mr Mhindurwa’s
explanation and determined that his conduct went beyond friendliness and was not
misinterpreted, and he exploited an imbalance of power for his own benefit and was
sexually motivated.
The panel therefore found Mr Mhindurwa’s actions at charge 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 fell
seriously short of the conduct and standards expected of a nurse and amounted to
misconduct.
Decision and reasons on impairment
49
The panel next went on to decide if as a result of the misconduct, Mr Mhindurwa’s fitness
to practise is currently impaired.
Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to
be professional and to maintain professional boundaries. Patients and their families must
be able to trust nurses with their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They must make
sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients’ and the public’s trust in the
profession.
In this regard the panel considered the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE
v NMC and Grant in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said:
‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by
reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only
whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the
public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper
professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be
undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular
circumstances.’
In paragraph 76, Mrs Justice Cox referred to Dame Janet Smith’s “test” which reads as
follows:
‘Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor’s misconduct, deficient
professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or
determination show that his/her/ fitness to practise is impaired in the sense
that S/He:
a) has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to
put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
50
b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the
medical profession into disrepute; and/or
c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach
one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or
d) …’
The panel found limbs a, b and c engaged in the Grant test. The panel found that patients
were put at risk of harm as a result of Mr Mhindurwa’s misconduct, particularly where he
refused to authorise agency staff for the coming week. The panel found Mr Mhindurwa’s
misconduct had breached the fundamental tenets of the nursing profession and therefore
brought its reputation into disrepute.
Regarding insight, the panel took into account Mr Mhindurwa’s reflective statement. He
has not provided a detailed response to the charges and has continually denied the
conduct found proved. He has not demonstrated an understanding of how his actions
affected his colleagues and could have impacted on patient safety. The panel saw no
evidence that Mr Mhindurwa has an understanding of why what he did was wrong and
how this impacted negatively on the reputation of the nursing profession. The panel
determined that Mr Mhindurwa has not sufficiently demonstrated how he would adjust his
behaviour in the future. It considered that Mr Mhindurwa had demonstrated very little
insight into his misconduct.
The panel considered that the concerns in this case are attitudinal and more difficult to put
right. The panel carefully considered the evidence before it in determining whether or not
Mr Mhindurwa has taken steps to address the misconduct identified. The panel took into
account the evidence of learning provided to the panel. The panel followed the training
hyperlinks provided by Mr Mhindurwa. It considered that spending a few minutes on a
module on professional boundaries between staff and patients was not relevant in the
51
circumstances of this case, nor was it sufficient to demonstrate he has remediated the
concerns.
The panel had regard to the references provided by Mr Mhindurwa which all dated back to
2020 which described him as sometimes presenting as “jovial which could be
misinterpreted” and also having “Bunter(sic) on the ward with staff as a way to break the
ice and relate to staff.” However, the panel was satisfied that his behaviour in this case did
not fall into the category of ‘jovial’ or ‘banter’.
The panel was of the view that there is a risk of repetition based on the limited insight and
lack of evidence of remediation. The panel therefore decided that a finding of impairment
is necessary on the grounds of public protection.
The panel bore in mind the overarching objectives of the NMC; to protect, promote and
maintain the health, safety, and well-being of the public and patients, and to uphold and
protect the wider public interest. This includes promoting and maintaining public
confidence in the nursing and midwifery professions and upholding the proper professional
standards for members of those professions.
The panel concluded that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a
finding of impairment were not made in this case and therefore also finds Mr Mhindurwa’s
fitness to practise impaired on the grounds of public interest. The panel determined that a
fully informed member of the public would be shocked if a finding of current impairment
was not made for a registrant who had behaved in this way.
Having regard to all of the above, the panel was satisfied that Mr Mhindurwa’s fitness to
practise is currently impaired.
Sanction
52
The panel has considered this case very carefully and has decided to make a striking-off
order. It directs the registrar to strike Mr Mhindurwa off the register. The effect of this order
is that the NMC register will show that Mr Mhindurwa has been struck-off the register.
In reaching this decision, the panel has had regard to all the evidence that has been
adduced in this case and had careful regard to the Sanctions Guidance (SG) published by
the NMC. The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
Submissions on sanction
Mr Sanghera submitted that the NMC is seeking a striking-off order. He outlined what the
NMC considered to be the aggravating and mitigating features of this case. He also
referred the panel to the NMC guidance on cases involving sexual misconduct
Mr Sanghera submitted that when considering which sanction to impose, the panel should
start with the least restrictive before arriving at the appropriate one. He submitted that to
take no further action or impose a caution order would not be appropriate as it would not
address the seriousness of the case or protect the public. He submitted that a conditions
of practice order was not appropriate or sufficient to protect patients or service users or to
address any concerns about public confidence or proper professional standards and
conduct.
Finally, he submitted that a suspension order would not be sufficient in this case. He
submitted that Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct raises fundamental questions about his
professionalism and is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be on the register.
As a result, public confidence in nurses, midwives and nursing associates cannot be
maintained if he is not removed from the register. He submitted that a period of
suspension would not be sufficient to protect patients, public confidence in nurses,
midwives or nursing associates, or professional standards. He therefore submitted that the
appropriate sanction in this case is a striking off order.
53
Decision and reasons on sanction
Having found Mr Mhindurwa’s fitness to practise currently impaired, the panel went on to
consider what sanction, if any, it should impose in this case. The panel has borne in mind
that any sanction imposed must be appropriate and proportionate and, although not
intended to be punitive in its effect, may have such consequences. The panel had careful
regard to the SG. The decision on sanction is a matter for the panel independently
exercising its own judgement.
The panel took into account the following aggravating features:
• Mr Mhindurwa abused his position of trust as hospital manager.
• Mr Mhindurwa’s lack of insight and remorse into misconduct.
• Little evidence that Mr Mhindurwa has adequately addressed his misconduct or
strengthened his practice.
• Mr Mhindurwa’s misconduct was not isolated, involved a number of acts in relation
to three different colleagues over a number of months and occurred very quickly on
his arrival to the hospital.
• Mr Mhindurwa’s conduct put patients at risk of suffering harm.
The panel was of the view that there are no mitigating features in this case.
The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would be
inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case. The panel decided that it would
neither protect the public nor be in the public interest to take no further action.
It then considered the imposition of a caution order but again determined that, due to the
seriousness of the case, and the public protection issues identified, an order that does not
restrict Mr Mhindurwa’s practice would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The SG
states that a caution order may be appropriate where ‘the case is at the lower end of the
spectrum of impaired fitness to practise and the panel wishes to mark that the behaviour
54
was unacceptable and must not happen again.’ The panel considered that Mr
Mhindurwa’s misconduct was not at the lower end of the spectrum and that a caution
order would be inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case. The panel decided
that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to impose a caution order.
The panel next considered whether placing conditions of practice on Mr Mhindurwa’s
registration would be a sufficient and appropriate response. The panel is of the view that
there are no practical or workable conditions that could be formulated, given the nature of
the charges in this case. The misconduct identified in this case was attitudinal and was not
something that can be addressed through retraining. The panel also had no evidence that
Mr Mhindurwa would be willing to comply with conditions. Furthermore, the panel
concluded that the placing of conditions on Mr Mhindurwa’s registration would not
adequately address the seriousness of this case and would not protect the public.
The panel then went on to consider whether a suspension order would be an appropriate
sanction. The SG states that a suspension order may be appropriate where some of the
following factors are apparent:
• A single instance of misconduct but where a lesser sanction is not
sufficient;
• No evidence of harmful deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems;
• No evidence of repetition of behaviour since the incident;
• The Committee is satisfied that the nurse or midwife has insight and does
not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour;
The panel considered that Mr Mhindurwa’s misconduct was not a single instance but
involved a number of acts in relation to three different colleagues over a number of
months. There is evidence of deep-seated attitudinal problems as his misconduct was
sexually motivated and involved sexual harassment as well as bullying and intimidation.
The panel saw no evidence that he has repeated his behaviour since these incidents but
because of his lack of insight and remediation he poses a serious risk of repeating his
55
behaviour. The panel therefore determined that the conduct, as highlighted by the facts
found proved, was a significant departure from the standards expected of a registered
nurse. The panel was satisfied that the serious breach of the fundamental tenets of the
profession evidenced by Mr Mhindurwa’s actions is fundamentally incompatible with him
remaining on the register.
In this particular case, the panel determined that a suspension order would not be a
sufficient, appropriate or proportionate sanction.
Finally, in looking at a striking-off order, the panel took note of the following paragraphs of
the SG:
• Do the regulatory concerns about the nurse or midwife raise
fundamental questions about their professionalism?
• Can public confidence in nurses and midwives be maintained if the
nurse or midwife is not removed from the register?
• Is striking-off the only sanction which will be sufficient to protect
patients, members of the public, or maintain professional standards?
Mr Mhindurwa’s actions were significant departures from the standards expected of a
registered nurse and are fundamentally incompatible with him remaining on the register.
The panel was of the view that the findings in this particular case demonstrate that Mr
Mhindurwa’s actions were serious and to allow him to continue practising would
undermine public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as a regulatory body.
Balancing all of these factors and after taking into account all the evidence before it during
this case, the panel determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is that of a
striking-off order. Having regard to the effect of Mr Mhindurwa’s actions in bringing the
profession into disrepute by adversely affecting the public’s view of how a registered nurse
should conduct himself, the panel has concluded that nothing short of this would be
sufficient in this case. The panel had no specific information as to any adverse effects,
56
whether financial or otherwise, of a striking-off order on Mr Mhindurwa. However, the
panel was satisfied that Mr Mhindurwa’s own interests were substantially outweighed by
the public interest.
The panel considered that this order was necessary to mark the importance of maintaining
public confidence in the profession, and to send to the public and the profession a clear
message about the standard of behaviour required of a registered nurse.
This decision will be confirmed to Mr Mhindurwa in writing.
Interim order
As the striking-off order cannot take effect until the end of the 28-day appeal period, the
panel has considered whether an interim order is required in the specific circumstances of
this case. It may only make an interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the
protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest or in Mr Mhindurwa’s own
interests until the striking-off order takes effect. The panel heard and accepted the advice
of the legal assessor.
Submissions on interim order
The panel took account of the submissions made by Mr Sanghera. He submitted that an
interim suspension order was necessary for the protection of the public and is in the wider
public interest in order to cover the appeal period. He submitted that the length of the
interim order is a matter for the panel.
Decision and reasons on interim order
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
57
facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order in
reaching the decision to impose an interim order.
The panel co


You may also like

error: Content is protected !!