Nursing and Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v K & OR

An interim suspension order for a registered healthcare professional is a short-term protective measure pending final determination. On an application to extend it beyond 18 months, the court must balance public and patient safety, the registrant’s interests, and the public interest in professional matters being resolved promptly.

In ordinary cases, the regulatory body should explain why the matter has not reached a final hearing within the initial 18-month period. An extension may be justified where an ongoing health condition requires further assessment. Where there is no good reason for delay, the court may grant only a shorter extension to focus the regulator on securing an early determination.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for extensions of interim suspension orders made against three registered professionals under Article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The orders had reached the statutory 18-month limit.

One application concerned alleged drug misuse and an evolving psychiatric condition. The second concerned alleged sexual misconduct involving a former service user and had been referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee only after the period of suspension. The third concerned longstanding occupational health problems, including possible blackouts or fits.

The central issue was whether, and for how long, the court should extend each interim suspension order.

1. Outcome. The applications were granted. The interim suspension orders concerning K and W were extended for 12 months. Mr Bawden’s order was extended for seven months only.
2. Statutory purpose. Article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 provides interim protection while allegations remain unresolved. The court’s power under Article 31(8) and (9) is not an open-ended power to continue suspension. The statutory maximums and review requirements indicate that interim suspension is intended for the short term and that the substantive matter should proceed to a final hearing.
3. Relevant balance. The court must weigh protection of patients and the public against the registrant’s ability to work, income, professional standing and personal interests. The public interest also includes timely resolution of serious allegations and finality for the profession and the registrant.
4. Reasons for delay. In an ordinary case the Council should explain expressly, or at least clearly, why the allegation has not been finally determined during the preceding 18 months. K’s case justified a full extension because her psychiatric condition remained under assessment and might determine whether the matter proceeded on health grounds. W’s case likewise involved an ongoing medical position, although the original reasoning for suspension was somewhat unclear and the committee was reminded to consider whether conditions would provide sufficient protection.
5. Shorter extension. In Mr Bawden’s case, the matter was essentially one of conduct and competence, had already been the subject of an employment disciplinary process, and there was no obvious good reason for the regulatory delay. The seven-month extension was therefore used to focus the committee on an early hearing.
6. The anonymity orders for K and W were made under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.