A leaked statement by an NHS Trust in response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling has brought into question whether a fair process is possible in the high-profile case of Christian nurse, Jennifer Melle.
St Helier and Epsom University Hospitals Trust, is at the centre of a media storm after being exposed for disciplining and suspending a Christian nurse for indirectly calling a convicted male paedophile ‘Mr’.
For not referring to him as a woman, the paedophile patient lunged at and repeatedly racially abused Jennifer Melle while she was on duty.
Despite Jennifer raising what she had experienced during an investigation into the incident, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals chose to ignore the abuse and instead gave her a final written warning and reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
The NMC confirmed they would be scrutinising Jennifer’s fitness to practice as a nurse because she posed a ‘risk’ to the public and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity.
Jennifer has since been suspended by the Trust for a ‘potential data breach’ for whistleblowing what had happened to her in the media.
It has recently been exposed that the Trust, while investigating Jennifer, waited a year to look into the racist abuse, and only did so following media scrutiny.
Backed by the Christian Legal Centre, Jennifer is taking legal action against the Trust on the grounds of harassment, discrimination, victimisation and human rights’ breaches, in a case that is believed to be unprecedented.
Leaked Trust statement
Following the ‘For Women Scotland’ Supreme Court ruling which gave clarity on the law regarding biological sex there have been calls for Jennifer to be reinstated and given a full apology.
The ruling made it clear that men who identify as women do not qualify as women.
It confirmed, for example, that when services or spaces are designated for women only, men cannot demand access—regardless of self-identification or legal documentation.
This week, however, even after the EHRC’s interim guidance, putting the word woman in speech marks, Victoria Smith, Group Chief People Officer at the Trust, sent this statement to all staff on behalf of the Executive team:
“Following the recent Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a “woman”, we want to take a moment to reaffirm something that remains at the heart of who we are at [St George’s, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals and Health Group] everyone deserves to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion.
“That includes our transgender staff, patients and community members, as well as those whose gender identity is nonbinary or different from the sex they were assigned at birth.
“We know this ruling may feel upsetting or uncertain to many, and we want to be clear: you are respected, you are supported, and you are valued here. Your identity is valid, and your presence strengthens our organisation and the care we provide.
“While we await further national guidance on any practical implications, our commitment remains unchanged. Inclusion isn’t just a value we talk about – it’s something we live through our policies, our practice, and the way we treat one another, every day. The ruling does not affect the legal protections in place for trans people.”
Lawlessness in the NHS
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This is another example of the lawlessness at the heart of the NHS. It demonstrates how far they are prepared to go to promote and uphold extreme gender identity ideology at the centre of its services and working culture.
“Such a statement makes it impossible for Jennifer Melle to receive a fair process in disciplinary proceedings on these issues at this hospital and NHS Trust. The Trust has made it clear that, in their view, the gender identity of a convicted paedophile, currently imprisoned for crimes committed on minors while presenting as a woman, must be affirmed at all costs.
“Any NHS staff member who refuses to actively endorse this ideology, even indirectly, now risks serious professional consequences. Jennifer Melle is just one example of this wider intolerance.
“The language and terms used by the Trust such as ‘gender identity’ and ‘non-binary’ are not recognised as protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Yet the Trust presents them as if they are not only protected but supersede both other legally protected beliefs and the authority of the Supreme Court.
“Guidance from Wes Streeting on these issues in the NHS cannot come soon enough. There is a huge and far-reaching job to be done to re-educate the NHS on what the law is and has always been.
“Rather than learning from the Supreme Court’s clear judgment on the primacy of biological sex in law, the Trust is doubling down, entrenching its ideological position and ignoring legal reality.”
Background to the story
On the night of May 22, 2024, Jennifer began her shift at the hospital, where a Pride Progress Flag—symbolising support for transgender rights and gender identity affirmation—flew from the rooftop.
Miss Melle, who came to the UK from Uganda as a child, and has worked her way up to become a senior nurse, had been told along with her colleagues that Mr X had been brought in for treatment from a Category C men’s prison and was a sex offender.
He entered the hospital chained to two guards and was clearly masculine in appearance, standing over six feet tall and of large build.
At 10pm, a junior colleague approached Miss Melle in a distressed state saying that Mr X wanted to self-discharge. He was shouting and upsetting other elderly and vulnerable patients on the ward.
The doctor had been called for guidance on the discharge but had not yet responded. As the senior nurse on the ward, Jennifer followed her colleague to take charge of the situation and to provide support.
Looking at the patient’s medical records, she saw that the patient was recorded as male, not female or transgender. On the name board next to the bed, it simply gave the feminine name.
With her colleague finally getting through to the doctor on the phone, Jennifer requested to speak to him. She said to the doctor that: ‘Mr X would like to self-discharge.’
Overhearing the call, enraged Mr X screamed: “Do not call me Mr! I am a woman!”
Still on the phone to the doctor, Jennifer called back to Mr X that she was speaking to the doctor and was working out what medication could be given before he was discharged.
Finishing the call, she approached the patient’s room.
‘Imagine if I called you a n*****?’
Stepping inside, Jennifer found Mr X pacing up and down in chains.
Jennifer politely said: ‘I am sorry I cannot refer to you as her or she, as it’s against my faith and Christian values but I can call you by your name.’
She then began to relay what the doctor had said, but then the abuse and vitriol escalated.
‘Imagine if I called you n*****’, Mr X yelled. ‘How about I call you n*****? Yes, black n*****!’
Jennifer said if he carried on, she would have to call security.
Mr X then lunged threateningly towards Jennifer and pursued her out of the room until he was eventually held back by the guards.
He then shouted: ‘I want your name and NHS number and am going to report you to the police for homophobia and to Patient Advice and Liaison Service’ (PALS).
One of the guards approached Jennifer and said: ‘Why can’t you just call him what he wants?’
Jennifer reiterated what she had already said about her Christian beliefs, and the guard said no more.
Returning, Jennifer said, using Mr X’s feminine name: ‘I got you your pain relief.’
After having the painkillers, Mr X calmed down and was quiet until the morning.
‘God created them male and female’
Afraid and upset, but keeping it inside, Jennifer handed over to colleagues on the next shift but felt unable to speak to anyone about what had happened.
Another colleague, who is not black, also called Mr X ‘he’ that evening but was not disciplined for doing so.
Shortly after arriving home, Jennifer received a call from a colleague who had taken over her shift. They said that Mr X had been shouting for her and repeating the threat that he was going to make a complaint to PALS.
Sleepless nights followed.
The next time Jennifer was on night shift, she was pulled aside by a ward manager and asked to make a statement about what had happened.
After Jennifer relayed that she was still feeling impacted by the racial and potential physical attacks, she was told that despite that she still had to respect “equality and diversity” according to the Nursing and Midwifery Council code of conduct.
Jennifer said she had no issues with people’s sexuality but also asked where the respect was for her Christian beliefs and said that she ‘could not deny biological reality’.
As a Christian, Jennifer believes that the Bible is unambiguous about human sex, as it is written in Genesis 1:27, that:
‘So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.’
Over the next few days Jennifer said she felt pressured to provide management with a statement.
She was then told that she must attend a meeting with HR and that if she refused to comply, she would be sent home until an investigation was completed.
She was then redeployed to another unit, which she found to be hurtful and demeaning.
Regulatory breach
An investigation report subsequently concluded that: ‘the Code of Conduct outlines that in order to treat people as individuals and to uphold their dignity nurses should avoid making assumptions and should recognise Diversity and individual choice.’
The report cited the NMC Code of Conduct which states that nurses should ‘not express your personal beliefs (including political, religious or moral beliefs) in an inappropriate way. Therefore, although [Jennifer] felt unable to identity Patient X using the preferred pronouns due to her religion, as outlined in the NMC Code of Conduct, it could be perceived that [Jennifer’s] actions could…be seen as a potential breach of the code.’
She was accused of ‘not respecting the patient’s preferred identity’ and told her actions and behaviour had ‘fallen short of the Trust’s value of Respect’.
Summoned to a disciplinary hearing in October 2024, Jennifer was given a final written warning and has been referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).
Since the incident, she has been moved to another ward and effectively demoted. Her name was wiped off the internal system, making it difficult to apply for extra shifts at the hospital.
Her capacity to earn much needed extra money was therefore removed and she and her family have suffered as a result.
Under severe pressure within the system, and with her career and livelihood under investigation and at serious risk, Jennifer faced no alternative but to file a legal claim on the grounds of harassment and direct discrimination.
She says that the NHS has unlawfully interfered with her rights under Article 9 ECHR to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, especially with her right to manifest her religion by seeking to compel her to use preferred pronouns.
In April, the Trust suspended Jennifer for a ‘potential data breach’, after she told her story to the media. The Trust has refused to give specific reasons for the suspension.
Find out more about Jennifer Melle
