What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
No charge, discontinuance or acquittal resolves the criminal route at that stage, but it does not automatically close a regulator or employer process. Different burdens, evidence and public-protection functions may lead to further consideration.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Obtain the official criminal outcome and any available reasons
Identify which allegations or facts remain in issue elsewhere
Correct inaccurate status descriptions in writing
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Name the criminal outcome accurately
Obtain the official notice, court record or prosecutor communication and identify exactly what ended. No further action after investigation, a decision not to charge, prosecution discontinuance, dismissal and acquittal arise at different stages. An acquittal records that the criminal allegation was not proved to the required standard; it should not be paraphrased as a conviction or admission. Equally, a notice that gives no reasons should not be expanded into a claim that every disputed event was positively disproved.
Record the charges or suspected offences covered, the date, whether the outcome followed a trial, and any reasons or judicial observations lawfully available. Check whether another count, suspect or investigation remains active. Correct employer, regulator and public-facing records that still describe a live charge after it has ended, using the official wording. Avoid asking a criminal solicitor to certify broader professional conclusions that the court or prosecutor did not decide; the regulatory relevance needs separate analysis under the applicable scheme.
- Secure the official outcome and available reasons
- Identify the exact allegation and stage that ended
- Correct outdated descriptions without overstating the result
02
Test whether any regulatory case can properly continue
Professional regulators serve public-protection and standards functions distinct from criminal prosecution. Some may investigate underlying conduct after no charge or acquittal because their rules use a different standard of proof and address a different question. That possibility is not permission to disregard the criminal result. Current NMC and GMC guidance requires careful attention to why proceedings ended, evidence rejected or untested, witness availability, fairness and whether regulatory action is genuinely necessary for the regulator's statutory purpose.
Ask the regulator to identify the allegation it proposes to determine, the legal ground, evidence and public-protection rationale. Compare that case with the criminal particulars rather than debating labels. A regulator should not present itself as correcting an unpopular verdict, and its more limited investigative powers may matter where forensic evidence or compelled testimony was central. Conversely, an acquittal on a narrowly defined offence may leave a different professional duty capable of fair determination on independently available evidence.
- Require a separately framed professional allegation
- Examine why the criminal route ended and what was actually tested
- Address fairness, evidence sufficiency and regulatory necessity
03
Prepare a focused post-criminal response
Provide the outcome document, relevant transcript or ruling where obtainable, and a table showing which alleged facts were admitted, disputed or determined. Identify evidence heard under challenge and material that was never placed before the criminal court. This prevents both sides from treating 'same incident' as 'same case'. If witnesses gave materially different accounts, use the authorised transcript rather than recollection. If no reasons exist, say that directly and focus on the evidential record that can now be verified.
The submission should propose a proportionate next step: closure, further defined enquiries, narrowing of the allegation, or case management before any full hearing. Include current-practice evidence only where the regulator's remaining test requires it; remediation should not imply a false admission. Continue complying with any interim order until formally revoked or varied, because the end of the criminal case does not itself cancel a regulatory restriction. Calendar any review and ask for a reasoned decision that engages with the criminal outcome.
- Compare criminal particulars with the proposed regulatory allegation
- Use authorised transcripts and rulings where available
- Seek a reasoned closure, narrowing or case-management decision
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
What the criminal outcome did and did not decide
Whether the regulator has independent admissible evidence
Whether continued action is fair and proportionate
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
Does an acquittal automatically close a fitness-to-practise case?
No. A regulator may consider a properly framed professional allegation under its own rules, but it should address the acquittal, evidential history, fairness and whether action serves its statutory purpose.
Is 'no further action' the same as a finding that nothing happened?
No. It means the criminal investigation will not proceed at that stage. The available notice and reasons should be reported accurately without adding conclusions it does not contain.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.