High Court upholds nurse's striking off over exam cheating in Khan v NMC

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a nurse struck off the register after cheating in postgraduate examinations, upholding both the Fitness to Practise Committee's decision to proceed in his absence and its decision to impose the most severe available sanction.

In Mohammed Islam Ahmad Khan v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2026] EWHC 1975 (Admin), Mr Justice Morris rejected both grounds of appeal brought by Mohammed Islam Ahmad Khan against decisions of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee, which had refused to postpone his disciplinary hearing and subsequently struck him off for dishonesty.

Khan, an experienced nurse with over two decades on the register, was studying part time for a Master's qualification when he was found in April 2021 to have brought a model answer into a pharmacology examination. Having failed a permitted resit, he was discovered at a further resit in December 2021 to have glued model answers into the pages of his reference text. He initially denied responsibility, at one point suggesting his young daughter had interfered with the book, but by the time of the appeal accepted that his conduct had been dishonest.

The disciplinary hearing was listed for May 2025 following earlier postponements granted on the basis of medical evidence relating to Khan's multiple sclerosis. On the morning the hearing was due to begin, Khan did not attend, and after a telephone call with the tribunal's hearings coordinator in which he indicated he might attend later that day following a hospital appointment for his wife, the panel adjourned until 2pm. Khan did not respond to further calls, voicemails or emails, and the panel proceeded in his absence, ultimately finding all charges proved and imposing a striking off order.

On appeal, Khan sought to introduce a witness statement giving a markedly different account of the events of that morning, denying he had mentioned a hospital appointment or indicated he might attend later, and asserting he had reasonably assumed the hearing had been adjourned indefinitely. Applying the established test in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, the judge found this account not credible, noting it directly contradicted both the contemporaneous record and Khan's own verified grounds of appeal, and declined to admit it as fresh evidence. Applying the principles set out in General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and General Medical Council v Hayat [2018] EWCA Civ 2796, the judge held the panel had properly directed itself and was entitled to conclude that the medical evidence before it did not justify further postponement, particularly given Khan remained in work at the time.

On sanction, the judge accepted the regulator's characterisation of the dishonesty as serious, premeditated and repeated, rejecting the submission that cheating unconnected to clinical duties fell at the lower end of the scale, on the basis that passing the examination fraudulently could have allowed Khan to practise as an advanced neonatal nurse practitioner without proper qualification. Fresh evidence of remorse and remediation submitted after the sanction was imposed, including an apology letter and reflective statement, was found insufficient to disturb the outcome, the judge noting it continued to characterise the conduct as a mistake rather than genuine dishonesty and made no reference to the risk to patient safety.

Both grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the striking off order was upheld.