Nursing and Midwifery Council v C

An interim suspension order may be extended where the court is satisfied that continuation remains necessary on the grounds supporting the original order, including protection of the public, the public interest or the respondent’s own interests. The court should nevertheless recognise the desirability of bringing regulatory proceedings to a conclusion promptly. Where proceedings contain confidential health information, the respondent’s identity and identifying information may be withheld where necessary in the respondent’s interests.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed after an allegation that the respondent had self-administered Entonox during employment. The investigation had been delayed by difficulties in obtaining medical evidence and by the respondent’s unwillingness to undergo further medical and psychiatric assessment. The respondent wished to leave the register permanently and did not appear or make representations. The issues were whether a further extension was necessary and whether the respondent’s identity should remain protected.

1. Anonymity. The court held that it was necessary, in the respondent’s interests, to withhold the respondent’s identity and information tending to identify the respondent because the regulatory proceedings involved confidential health information. The ruling under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was made without prejudice to any later application or ruling.
2. Extension of suspension. Under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the relevant question was whether continuation of the interim suspension remained necessary on the grounds on which it had originally been imposed. Those grounds were protection of the public, the public interest and the respondent’s own interests.
3. The court acknowledged that the NMC could have brought the matter to a final hearing earlier and stated that it was highly desirable for the investigation to be dealt with sooner rather than later. However, the case was approaching a further decision by an Investigations Committee, and the court remained satisfied that an extension was necessary.
4. The interim suspension order was extended for 12 months. The court confirmed that the extension was necessary on the original grounds.