Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

UK tribunal strikes off a dietitian it found used AI to answer clinical questions in a remote NHS job interview; she denied using AI

A dietitian on the UK register who was in Nigeria at the time was interviewed online in March 2024 for an entry-level oncology dietitian post at an NHS hospital in Surrey, according to reports of a Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service decision. The reports say the interviewers noticed that she repeatedly asked for clinical questions to be repeated and then gave fluent, textbook answers while her eyes moved as if reading from another screen, and that all of them came to the view she was using artificial intelligence; a case study she then completed was also judged AI-assisted, and her answers were later run through an AI check with striking similarities. She denied using AI, saying she habitually repeated questions and was looking at her router. The tribunal panel found that she used AI in the interview, that this was cheating and dishonesty, and ordered that she be struck off the register, with an interim suspension of 18 months during which she may appeal. Nigerian outlets, citing the Daily Mail, said the tool was ChatGPT; the local report describes it only as AI. The decision date and any appeal are not stated in the sources read.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Occurred
Mar 2024
Reported
2 April 2026
Event location
United Kingdom, Nigeria
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Health
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts
6 claims: 6 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An AI tool used to generate answers during a remote job interview, not identified in the tribunal account as reported locally; Nigerian outlets citing the Daily Mail call it ChatGPT

Reported harm

According to reports of the tribunal decision, the dietitian was struck off the UK professional register, with an 18-month interim suspension pending any appeal, after the panel found she had used AI to answer interview questions; she denied using AI.

Outcome

Resolved

The Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service panel found her fitness to practise impaired and made a striking-off order; an 18-month interim suspension order applies while she can appeal. No appeal is reported.

What remains unknown

  • The date of the tribunal decision; the reports appeared in early April 2026.
  • Which AI tool, if any, was used; the local report of the decision says AI and the Nigerian relays say ChatGPT.
  • Whether she appealed.
  • The tribunal decision itself was not found on the HCPTS site; every claim rests on press reports of it.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The sanction responds to AI use found by the tribunal: according to the reports, all interviewers concluded she was using artificial intelligence to answer clinical questions as she read answers from a screen, a later AI check of her answers showed striking similarities, and the panel was satisfied she used AI in the interview and the case study. On that finding the AI tool generated the answers she gave. She denied using AI. The tool is not identified in the local report of the decision; Nigerian outlets citing the Daily Mail call it ChatGPT.

6 claims: 6 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The dietitian, who was in Nigeria at the time, was interviewed online for an oncology dietitian post at an NHS hospital in Surrey in March 2024.

Causal attribution. Facts from the tribunal decision as reported; the month comes from Punch's account only.

Reported All of the interviewers came to the view that she was using AI to answer clinical questions, and her answers were later run through an AI check that showed striking similarities.

Causal attribution. The interviewers' evidence as the decision records it; the AI check's method is not described.

  • haslemereherald.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'All of the interviewers came to the view she was using artificial intelligence to answer clinical questions.'; 'After the interview her answers were run through an AI check with striking similarities.'
  • legit.ng(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'One panel member later tested the questions on ChatGPT and noticed close similarities to her responses.'
Reported The tribunal panel found that she used AI in the interview and the case study and that this amounted to cheating and dishonesty.

Causal attribution. The panel's finding, which she disputes; the decision itself was not read.

Reported She denied using AI, saying she habitually repeated questions and was looking at her router rather than reading.

Causal attribution. Her account as the reports record it.

Reported The panel made a striking-off order, and an 18-month interim suspension order applies while she can appeal.

Causal attribution. The sanction follows the panel's finding of AI use.

  • haslemereherald.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The panel concluded that the appropriate sanction is a Striking Off Order.'
  • punchng.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'ordered her removal from the UK dietician register'; 'An interim suspension order of 18 months will apply during which she can appeal the decision'
Reported The panel said it took full account of the financial and other hardship to her but put protection of the public first.

Causal attribution. The panel's reasoning as quoted locally.

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-11-01. Surrey local report quoting the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service panel's decision. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-11-01. Punch article dated 2 April 2026; it says it relies on the Daily Mail's report of the decision. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-11-01. Legit.ng article dated 3 April 2026 relaying the Daily Mail; same chain as s2. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United Kingdom, Nigeria. Affected-person countries: Nigeria. Court countries: United Kingdom.

The interview was held online between an NHS hospital in Surrey, England, and the applicant, who was in Nigeria at the time; the sanction was imposed by the UK Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service. Punch describes her as Nigerian.

Reviewed for publication 2026-11-01: Published as a consequential response to AI use: a professional regulator's tribunal struck a dietitian off its register after finding she used AI to answer clinical questions in a remote job interview, as reported by a local paper quoting the decision and by Nigerian national press; she denied using AI.

People described

A Nigeria-based dietitian on the UK professional register who applied for an NHS oncology dietitian post

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the registrant struck off after the panel found she used AI in the interview. The hospital and patients the panel mentions as potentially affected are not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#professional-regulator#job-interview#remote-interview#striking-off-order#alleged-ai-use-denied

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). UK tribunal strikes off a dietitian it found used AI to answer clinical questions in a remote NHS job interview; she denied using AI. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-uk-tribunal-strikes-off-dietitian-it-found-used-ai-to-answer-clinical-questions-in-remote-nhs-job-interview

BibTeX

@misc{2024_uk_tribunal_strikes_off_dietitian_it_found_used_ai_to_answer_clinical_questions_in_remote_nhs_job_interview,
  title = {UK tribunal strikes off a dietitian it found used AI to answer clinical questions in a remote NHS job interview; she denied using AI},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-uk-tribunal-strikes-off-dietitian-it-found-used-ai-to-answer-clinical-questions-in-remote-nhs-job-interview}
}

Related cases

High Unidentified AI tool

SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence

On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated

Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.

Low Unidentified AI tool

KPMG Australia fined a partner more than A$10,000 for uploading course material to an AI tool to answer an internal AI training exam, reports say

A partner at KPMG Australia, who is also a registered company auditor, was fined more than A$10,000 of future income after uploading a training course's reference manual into an AI tool to answer a question in the firm's internal exam on AI, the Australian Financial Review reported on 15 February 2026; other outlets relaying it say the partner was also made to redo the test. According to those reports, the partner completed the mandatory AI training in July, the firm's monitoring detected the AI use in August, and an internal investigation decided the fine; the reports do not state the year of the training or the detection. The partner self-reported to Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ), which is investigating. KPMG said more than two dozen staff had been caught using AI in internal exams since July. The partner is not named.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

New hire says employer let them go in their first week for using its own internal AI tool on a compliance training, after telling the manager (first-person)

In a public post to r/jobs created on 24 October 2026, a software engineer with about three years of experience writes that, after three and a half months of assessments and eight interviews, they joined a well-known multinational company that they do not name. In the first week they were given a compliance training whose questions they found ambiguous, and they used the company's own internal AI tool to help, telling their manager, who they say was fine with it. The following Monday, the poster writes, HR joined their one-to-one meeting and told them they were being let go for using AI on the training; the call lasted a couple of minutes and they lost access shortly afterwards. The poster says that a month later about 400 applications and more than 150 cold emails had brought almost nothing back and that they are stressed. The employer, its location and the date of the dismissal are not stated. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no employer statement was retrieved.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents