Probity · Declarations

Failure to Disclose: False or Concealed Declarations in Fitness to Practise

Every form that asks you to declare something, the two legal routes regulators use when a declaration is wrong, how panels tell an honest mistake from concealment, six real decisions, and what to do if you have already answered a question incorrectly.

Reviewed October 2026 against GMC, NMC, HCPC, GDC and GPhC guidance and data

Where declarations happen Mistake or concealment? Putting it right

Short answer: failing to disclose a caution, charge, conviction, investigation, dismissal or restriction when a form asks for it is one of the most common routes to removal from a UK health register. The underlying matter is often minor. The concealment is what makes the case serious, because it is usually treated as dishonesty. Panels distinguish a genuine error from a deliberate omission by looking at what you knew, how many chances you had to disclose, whether you disclosed some things but not others, and what you stood to gain. If you have already answered a question wrongly, correcting it yourself, in writing, is far better than waiting to be found out.

Key takeaways

Revalidation and renewal forms are declarations. A false answer there can lead to removal under the fraudulent entry powers, separate from any misconduct case.
An "ongoing" matter counts. Charges, investigations and pending referrals are often exactly what a form asks about.
Selective disclosure is treated as strong evidence of intent. Declaring what an employer could find anyway, but not what they could not, was decisive in one 2026 erasure.
Every High Court case in this guide ended with strike-off or erasure upheld, including one first sent back for a fresh hearing.
Where an entry was wrong but there was no intent to mislead, the NMC can amend it or take no action, especially if you corrected it yourself.

This guide is about what happens when a declaration is wrong or missing. For what you must report and when old cautions become protected, see our guide on whether to self-refer. For how panels decide whether conduct was dishonest, see our guide to dishonesty allegations.

Every form that asks you to declare

Many professionals think of disclosure as a one-off duty to tell their regulator. In practice, the same question is asked repeatedly, on different forms, and each answer is a separate opportunity to get it right or wrong.

Moment	Who asks	What is typically asked
Joining the register	Every regulator	Health and character, including convictions, cautions and other regulators' findings
Renewal	HCPC every two years; GDC and GPhC annually	A professional declaration that you still meet the standards, including health and character. The HCPC says "making a false declaration can result in you being removed from our Register"
NMC revalidation, every three years	NMC	Whether you have been "charged, convicted of any criminal offence (including a conditional discharge) or issued with a formal caution", other regulators' findings, and declarations about practice hours, CPD, feedback, reflection and your confirmer
GMC revalidation and appraisal	GMC, through your responsible officer	A probity statement and a health statement, alongside significant events and complaints
Between forms	Your regulator	The GPhC requires pharmacy professionals to tell it "within seven days" of becoming aware of an issue. The HCPC asks you to declare changes at any point
Job and agency applications	Employers and agencies	Convictions, cautions, investigations, dismissals and any restrictions on registration
While under conditions or undertakings	The terms of the order	Many orders require you to tell any prospective employer, at the time of application

Health and care roles are exempt from most of the usual rules on spent convictions, so you may have to declare matters that would not appear on a basic check. Our self-referral guide explains which old cautions and convictions become protected and when.

Two legal routes when a declaration is wrong

When a regulator discovers that a declaration was wrong, the case can follow one of two routes, and sometimes both.

Route 1

Fraudulent or incorrect entry

Applies when the wrong information was given to the regulator itself, on a registration, renewal, readmission or revalidation application. The question is whether your entry on the register was "fraudulently procured or incorrectly made".

GMC: the Registrar may erase the entry (Medical Act 1983, s39)
NMC: the Investigating Committee can remove, amend or take no action (Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, art 26(7))
HCPC: referred to the Investigating Committee (Health Professions Order 2001, art 22(1)(b))
GDC (dental care professionals): a suspected fraudulent entry goes to the Professional Conduct Committee, and the Registrar erases an incorrect one (Dentists Act 1984, s36I)

Route 2

A fitness to practise allegation

Applies to false or incomplete declarations to employers, agencies, recruiters and others, and to a failure to tell the regulator when required. The allegation is usually misconduct, often with dishonesty, and is decided by a fitness to practise panel or tribunal.

The full range of sanctions is available, up to strike-off or erasure
Dishonesty is judged by the two-stage Ivey test
A struck-off professional usually cannot apply to return for five years

Not every complaint about a register entry goes forward. At the NMC, the Registrar first decides whether an allegation qualifies for referral, and the High Court in Oriaku v NMC [2017] EWHC 235 (Admin) described that triage as "a safeguard against referral of complaints which had no substance" (para 64).

NMC panels directing removal for fraudulent or incorrect entryNMC Annual Fitness to Practise Report 2024 to 2025

2022 to 202354

2023 to 202435

2024 to 202518

One difference matters a great deal. NMC guidance says that if an entry is removed under the fraudulent entry route, "the person concerned can apply for registration immediately afterwards". In practice, any new application is then assessed against the health and character requirements, with the history in full view. Strike-off after a fitness to practise hearing carries the usual five-year wait, covered in our guide to remediation timescales.

Incorrect or fraudulent: how the difference is drawn

NMC guidance draws the line clearly. An entry is incorrect when the information given was wrong but there was no deliberate intent to mislead. It is fraudulent when wrong information was given "with the deliberate intention to mislead". The NMC's published examples include a nursing associate who did not disclose a driving while disqualified conviction at revalidation and later said they did not know it had to be declared, and a midwife who declared all revalidation requirements complete without having held the reflective discussion with a colleague.

Where there was no intent to mislead

Amend, or take no action

NMC guidance says amending the entry suits cases where "the entry was incorrect" with "no fraud or dishonesty", and no action may be appropriate where the error is "trivial or unimportant" or the professional "has corrected the error or inaccuracy".

Where there was intent to mislead

Removal is likely

NMC guidance says removal is appropriate particularly where a person "gained or maintained their registration through wrong information about their qualifications, practice history or character", and that fraud is "a strong factor in favour of removing the entry".

The HCPC's health and character guidance strikes the same balance from the other side. It warns that a false declaration can lead to removal, but also says that, as a general guide, no further action will usually be taken on many declared matters. For most people, the declaration itself is far less risky than the omission. GDC guidance on convictions and cautions takes the same approach: where a matter was not declared at the point of registration, the GDC considers whether the non-declaration was misleading, deliberately misleading or dishonest (para 22).

Six real decisions

Four High Court judgments and two published NMC Investigating Committee decisions show how these cases play out. The panel decisions are summarised without names.

Real case · High Court · 2024 and 2026

Ali v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 2272 (Admin) and [2026] EWHC 444 (Admin)

The facts. A doctor applied to the NHS Bringing Back Staff programme in June 2020. He disclosed his dangerous driving conviction and the conditions on his registration, but answered that he was "not subject to any current/new fitness to practice investigations", when a GMC investigation was under way. In 2024 the High Court sent the case back to a tribunal because it had not resolved a disputed conversation in which the doctor said a programme coordinator had told him the investigation was irrelevant.

The outcome. A fresh tribunal again found dishonesty and directed erasure, and in 2026 the High Court dismissed his appeal. The tribunal had explained that the omission was significant because "it was the only matter he omitted, which was not publicly available" (para 47). The court upheld erasure, noting his persistent lack of insight.

The lesson: disclosing the matters an employer could check anyway, while leaving out the one it could not, is strong evidence of intent. And if someone tells you something does not need declaring, get that in writing.

Real case · High Court · 2025

Mitchell v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 1496 (Admin)

The facts. A nurse was arrested in November 2020 in a criminal investigation and later charged. She did not disclose the matter on a job application form, or to her line manager during her employment, and did not tell the NMC. The NMC Code requires registrants to tell both the NMC and any employers "as soon as you can about any caution or charge against you" (23.2).

The outcome. The panel found dishonesty proved for the application form and the period of employment, but not for an earlier telephone screening. It described "a sustained deliberate deception over a period of one year and five months" and directed strike-off. The High Court dismissed the appeal, with Mr Justice Mould agreeing that "only a striking-off order is sufficient sanction to maintain public confidence" (para 93).

The lesson: the panel looked at each occasion separately. Every form, conversation and month of silence is a fresh decision point, and a sustained period of non-disclosure weighs heavily.

High Court · 2024

Cascioli v NMC [2024] EWHC 1109 (Admin)

Omitted: a conditions of practice order from job applications, though a condition required her to tell any prospective nursing employer "at the time of application". She raised it only at interview or when asked.

Outcome: dishonesty found, strike-off. All 15 grounds of appeal rejected.

High Court · 2025

Adebayo v NMC [2025] EWHC 315 (Admin)

Omitted: a previous dismissal and an NHS counter fraud investigation from a 2020 application, stating he had not been dismissed, and a delay in telling the new employer about a criminal charge.

Outcome: charges admitted, strike-off. The court found the order "well within the Panel's discretion" (para 99).

NMC Investigating Committee · 2026

A revalidation form, seven days after a conviction

Omitted: a drink-driving conviction from a revalidation application submitted a week after the conviction, answering "no" to the conviction question.

Outcome: the panel found the entry "deliberately and fraudulently procured", noting there had been "multiple opportunities to disclose", and directed removal.

NMC Investigating Committee · 2023

A revalidation confirmer who never confirmed

False: a revalidation application naming a colleague as confirmer without her consent, with incomplete reflective accounts and feedback. One piece of feedback was dated after submission.

Outcome: fraudulent entry found and removal directed. Revalidation declarations are treated as seriously as criminal record questions.

Sources: National Archives judgments listed below; NMC Investigating Committee decisions, January 2026 and March 2023, published on the NMC website.

What turned an omission into dishonesty

Across these decisions, the same features come up again and again. None of them is decisive alone, but each makes an innocent explanation harder to accept.

Knowledge
You clearly knew about the matter. A conviction a week before the form, or an investigation you were actively responding to, leaves little room for "I forgot".
Repetition
There were several chances to disclose. Panels count opportunities: each form, interview, supervision meeting and renewal.
Selectivity
Some things were disclosed and others were not. Partial disclosure shows you understood what was being asked.
Motive
There was something to gain. A job, a placement or continued registration gives a reason to conceal.
False answer
You said something untrue, not just nothing. Ticking "no" or writing "never dismissed" is treated more seriously than leaving a box blank.
Duration
The silence went on. A deception sustained over months, as in Mitchell, weighs heavily at sanction.

The reverse features help an honest explanation: a matter you genuinely did not know needed declaring, a question that was ambiguous, prompt self-correction, and full disclosure elsewhere at around the same time. Panels still test these explanations carefully against the documents.

Answering the awkward questions

Read the exact words. "Have you ever been", "are you currently" and "is there any pending" ask different things. Answer the question as written, not the one you expected.
Treat pending matters as live. Charges, investigations, referrals, interim orders and undertakings are often exactly what is being asked about.
If unsure, disclose and explain. A short, factual explanation alongside a "yes" is rarely held against anyone. An unexplained "no" can be.
Get advice in writing. If a recruiter, manager or adviser tells you something does not need declaring, ask them to confirm it by email and keep it.
Keep copies. Save every declaration you submit, with the date and the exact question, so you can show later what you were asked and what you said.
Check conditions and undertakings. If an order requires you to tell prospective employers at the time of application, the application form itself must say so.

If you have already made a wrong declaration

Wrong declarations usually come to light eventually, through a criminal record check, a reference, another regulator or an employer. NMC guidance specifically recognises self-correction as a reason why no action may be needed. Acting first changes how the whole matter is seen.

Get advice first, but quickly. Speak to your defence organisation, union or insurer, the same day if possible.
Correct it in writing. Tell whoever received the wrong declaration, whether your regulator, your employer or both, what was wrong and what the correct position is.
Explain, without excuses. Say how it happened, honestly. If it was deliberate, say so. Panels respond far better to candour than to a story that unravels.
Provide the documents. Court records, the original form and any correspondence help the regulator see the full picture quickly.
Address the underlying matter. The original caution or conviction still needs to be dealt with on its own merits.
Show what has changed. Reflection and targeted learning help demonstrate that it will not happen again.

Where the concern is about honesty in forms and declarations, our Probity course covers the standards behind each kind of declaration and can form part of your remediation evidence. Our guide to insight explains how to show a panel that you understand why the omission mattered.

Frequently asked questions

Is failing to declare a conviction always treated as dishonest?

No. Regulators distinguish an incorrect declaration, where there was no intent to mislead, from a fraudulent one. But where you clearly knew about the matter and had reason to conceal it, panels often find dishonesty.

Do I have to declare a charge or investigation that has not been decided?

Often, yes. NMC revalidation asks whether you have been charged, and the NMC Code requires you to tell the NMC and employers about any caution or charge as soon as you can. Many job applications ask about current investigations. Read each question carefully.

Is a revalidation form really a legal declaration?

Yes. False revalidation declarations, about convictions, practice hours, reflective discussions or confirmers, can lead to removal under the NMC's fraudulent or incorrect entry powers.

What is the difference between fraudulent entry and fitness to practise?

Fraudulent or incorrect entry concerns wrong information given to the regulator to gain or keep registration. Fitness to practise covers wider conduct, including false declarations to employers. They follow different procedures and outcomes.

If my entry is removed for fraudulent entry, can I reapply?

At the NMC, the person concerned can apply for registration immediately afterwards, but the new application is assessed against the health and character requirements, with the history known.

A recruiter told me I did not need to declare something. Am I protected?

Not automatically. In Ali v GMC, a disputed conversation with a programme coordinator had to be resolved by a tribunal, which still found dishonesty. If you are given advice like this, get it in writing.

What should I do if I realise I answered a question wrongly?

Get advice quickly, then correct the declaration in writing with an honest explanation and supporting documents. Self-correction is recognised by the NMC as a reason why no action may be needed.

Does a pharmacist have to wait until renewal to declare?

No. The GPhC says pharmacy professionals must tell it within seven days of becoming aware of an issue that may affect their fitness to practise, and should not wait until renewal.

Primary sources

20 official documents and judgments