Panel retires in RAF Shawbury nurse expenses hearing
A former Royal Air Force (RAF) nurse who is accused of knowingly receiving money for a conference she did not attend is due to learn the outcome of a hearing into the allegations.
Deborah Hudson is before a Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) hearing facing six charges in relation to a primary health care event she attended at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham on May 11 and 12 of 2022. Mrs Hudson worked at RAF Shawbury at the time but has since left the organisation.
It is alleged that she wrongly received and retained payment for study leave which she was not granted for the purpose of attending the conference when she did not attend, and wrongly submitted expenses claims for those dates.
Therefore, it is alleged that Mrs Hudson’s conduct was dishonest in that she knew she did not attend the conference, and was not entitled to claim expenses. Mrs Hudson denies this, maintaining that she did attend.
Mrs Hudson also denies that, on October 20, 2022, in a meeting with a colleague, she incorrectly stated that she had a certificate of attendance for the conference but had not brought it to the meeting.
Another charge she denies is that her conduct was dishonest in that she knew she had not attended one or more sessions at the relevant conference and had not possessed a certificate.
However, Mrs Hudson has admitted that, on September 6, 2022, in a meeting with another colleague, she incorrectly stated she had attended one or more sessions at the relevant conference, and had a certificate of attendance but it had been shredded.
A panel which has been listening to evidence as part of a substantive hearing since last Tuesday (November 18) has now retired to consider its verdict.
Summing up the NMC’s case on Monday (November 24), Nazazish Choudhury said there was no actual, direct or independently corroborated, contemporaneous factual evidence to suggest that the registrant attended the conference.
“There are no train tickets for either day, there are no parking tickets, there are no food or drink receipts, and subject to two bank receipts that the registrant has provided, there are no bank statements in terms of setting out expenditure on those two dates,” said Mr Choudhury.
“The only account that the registrant did attend this conference is what she has said to this panel. But there is no date generated from [conference organisers] Stirling Events that shows the registrant attended on either day, but especially the second day which is the day that the registrant says… that she was scanned with her barcode.”
Mrs Hudson said that she printed off her badge at home and brought it to the conference, where it was scanned, then received a certificate of attendance for the second day, which she said was sent to her NHS email address. However, the organisers said she registered with a different email address.
“[Organiser] Ben Globe described a robust system put in place by Stirling Events to monitor and ensure attendance is done properly,” said Mr Choudhury.
“People seem to get [Continuing Professional Development] CPD points from this particular conference, so Stirling Events needed a system in place to ensure this was accurately measured.
“If somehow she did enter the conference, she would still have been required to scan at least once to gain access to the exhibition, which would have been with the barcode, so creating data.”
Mrs Hudson told the panel that that she attended “three or four lectures” on the first day, although in a meeting with one of her colleagues following the conference she said it was just one.
The registrant then became unwell on the second day, meaning she was unable to attend. However, according to her employer at the time, she did not contact them to explain the situation.
The panel heard evidence from Paul Broomhead, who led an investigation into Mrs Hudson’s alleged conduct.
Mr Broomhead had said that, because Ministry of Defence (MoD) staff are effectively civilian servants, there is a measure of honesty required.
“You will be deemed accountable for the veracity and probity of your claims, and any inappropriate and unjustified elements would be disallowed,” said Mr Choudhury.
“In my submission, the issue of receipts was a very important thing. MoD staff were meant to keep receipts for more than a year, for the purposes of an audit trail.
“When a MoD [member of] staff goes on to the MoD system to claim their expenses, they do not at that stage need to upload copies of their receipts.
“But that receipt is still meant to be kept afterwards. The MoD trust their staff to put in their information correctly and honestly.
“In this case, keeping of receipts was of vital importance."
