Nursing & Midwifery Council v Webster

A court may extend an interim suspension of professional registration where suspension remains necessary for public protection or is otherwise in the public interest. The court may grant an extension for up to 12 months, subject to the prescribed periodic reviews. The respondent’s absence does not prevent determination of the application where service has been validly effected under the applicable fitness-to-practise rules. The court may rely on counsel’s information about service, provided the relevant party undertakes promptly to file evidence confirming that information.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a 12-month extension of an interim order suspending Nigel Webster’s registration. The original 18-month suspension was due to expire on 10 July 2006. The underlying fitness-to-practise investigation had been delayed while criminal proceedings concerning alleged sexual assaults were completed. Mr Webster was convicted shortly before the application and was neither present nor represented.

The issues were whether a further suspension was necessary for public protection or the public interest, and whether the application could properly proceed in his absence having regard to service requirements.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that continued suspension for 12 months was necessary for the protection of members of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. The extension remained subject to the periodic reviews required by Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.
2. Under regulation 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Council could impose one initial suspension for up to 18 months. A further extension had to be sought from the court and could be granted for up to 12 months. The Practice Committee’s review obligations continued during the extended period.
3. The court accepted that it was sensible for the Council to postpone its own investigation while related criminal proceedings were pending. The conviction supplied a materially changed position and justified continuation of the protective interim measure while the professional investigation proceeded.
4. The respondent’s absence did not prevent the hearing. The court was satisfied that notice had been served at the address appearing in the register and constituting the respondent’s last known address, in accordance with paragraph 34(1) of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004.
5. Because the evidence about service had been provided by counsel rather than fully set out in the witness statement, the Council undertook to file within seven days a further witness statement and supporting register material. On that undertaking, the order sought was made.