Michelle Louise Tanner
Introduction
Michelle Louise Tanner is a former registered midwife who has been struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register. At a review meeting on 17 August 2026, a Fitness to Practise Committee panel found that her fitness to practise remained impaired and imposed a striking-off order. Tanner, whose NMC PIN is 18B0222E, had been registered as a midwife since 13 June 2018, with her relevant location recorded as Surrey. The meeting was the first review of a twelve-month suspension imposed on 21 August 2025, after a panel found proved that she had accessed a colleague’s confidential medical records and searched records for names of midwives she worked with, with no clinical justification.
Background Information
The case was a misconduct case within the NMC’s fitness to practise system. The order under review — a twelve-month suspension imposed by a Fitness to Practise Committee panel on 21 August 2025 — was due to expire at the end of 22 September 2026. The review was held in London before a panel chaired by Geraldine O’Hare, with Michelle Wells-Braithwaite as registrant member and Raj Chauhan as lay member.
Tanner did not attend. The panel recorded that the Notice of Meeting had been sent to her registered email address on 17 June 2026 and was satisfied that service complied with the Fitness to Practise Rules. No reflective piece, no training evidence and no engagement with the NMC from Tanner was before the panel.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings described here are regulatory findings made on the balance of probabilities by a Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee panel — not criminal convictions, and a striking-off order is not a criminal record. The charges below were found proved by the original panel, and no charge was found not proved; nothing in the published record records a denial by Tanner, who did not attend the review and provided no written evidence.
The conduct took place on 15 October 2023. The original panel found proved that Tanner, in relation to a colleague identified as Colleague 1, “accessed private and confidential medical records with no clinical justification to do so”, and that she “Searched medical record for names of midwives you worked with when you had no clinical justification to do this.” The panel found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of her misconduct, holding that her actions fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered midwife and breached sections 5 and 20 of the Code, on respecting people’s right to privacy and confidentiality and upholding the reputation of the profession.
The panel considered that viewing Colleague 1’s records, which “contained sensitive social history”, and becoming aware of her pregnancy was a breach of professional boundaries, and determined that Tanner had abused her position of trust as a professional. She had no clinical justification to access the records of Colleague 1 or of the other midwives at her workplace, and Colleague 1 was herself a patient entitled to confidence that her records would not be accessed by those not involved in her care. The panel found that patients were put at risk and that the misconduct brought the profession’s reputation into disrepute.
The panel held that her actions “amounted to serious misconduct” and identified two aggravating features: Tanner’s lack of insight, and her “abuse of position of trust through her unauthorised access of highly sensitive patient data without justification”. It could not identify any mitigating features, had no evidence of relevant training or a reflective piece, and noted that her employment status was unknown.
Public Reaction and Consequences
Because the matter was decided by her professional regulator, the consequences were regulatory rather than criminal, but they were career-ending. The original panel ruled out taking no action and a caution order as neither proportionate nor in the public interest, and concluded that no practical or workable conditions of practice could be formulated. It considered striking off but concluded that it would be disproportionate and “unduly punitive” at that stage, and instead imposed a twelve-month suspension with review. Any future reviewing panel, it said, would be assisted by a reflective piece from Tanner, her engagement with the NMC, and evidence of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) training.
None of that materialised. The review panel had received no reflective piece demonstrating insight, no evidence of the suggested GDPR training or any other relevant training, and no evidence of meaningful engagement with the NMC. It acknowledged Tanner’s previous indication that she did not intend to continue working in the United Kingdom. The panel noted that she “has not shown remorse for her misconduct” and “has not demonstrated any insight into her previous failings”, and determined that a further suspension “would not serve any useful purpose”; the only sanction that would adequately protect the public was a striking-off order.
Current Status
Tanner stands struck off the NMC register. The striking-off order took effect at the end of 22 September 2026, upon expiry of the suspension order, in accordance with Article 30(1) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (as amended), and the panel directed the registrar to strike her name from the register. MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions, lists the outcome against her name and registration number as erasure — struck off the register. The findings were made on the civil standard by an NMC panel; the striking-off order is not a criminal record.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order ends Tanner’s registration and with it her ability to work as a midwife in the UK. The findings on the public record are specific: the unauthorised access of a colleague’s confidential medical records, a search of records for the names of midwives she worked with, and the discovery of sensitive personal information including a colleague’s pregnancy — all without clinical justification. Because the review panel found “no evidence of insight, reflection, remediation or relevant training” and a continuing risk of repetition, the record contains nothing pointing toward restoration.
Her previous indication that she did not intend to continue working in the United Kingdom shaped the outcome: the panel concluded there was no evidence she was likely to return to safe and unrestricted practice within a reasonable period of time, and that she should be removed from the register. Her name, PIN and erasure outcome remain documented in the NMC’s published outcomes and in independent records such as MedicWatch, which states it draws all facts from the publicly published determination.