Nursing & Midwifery Council v McMorine

A court may extend an interim suspension of professional registration only where suspension remains necessary for public protection, otherwise serves the public interest, or is in the registrant’s interests. The court should apply the statutory criteria governing the professional regulator. Serious allegations may justify continuation without the court determining their merits. The duration of any extension must balance the need for protection against the requirement that disciplinary proceedings be concluded promptly, allowing only a reasonable margin for practical difficulties.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further extension of an interim suspension imposed on the respondent’s registration. The suspension had initially been imposed by the Investigating Committee and had subsequently been continued by the relevant Council committees. The Conduct and Competence Committee had decided that a substantive hearing was necessary and dates had been proposed for October 2007.

The Council sought a six-month extension under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The respondent did not attend or make representations. The central issues were whether the statutory test for suspension was satisfied and what period of further suspension was justified.

1. The application for a further suspension was granted. The court ordered a further period of four months, rather than the six months sought.

2. Under article 31, paragraph 8 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Council’s committees may extend suspension only up to a maximum of 18 months. Thereafter the Council may apply to the court for a further extension of up to 12 months.

3. The relevant criterion under article 31, paragraph 2 is whether suspension is necessary for the protection of members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the registrant. The court inferred that the same criterion should be applied when deciding whether a further extension is necessary.

4. The allegations were serious, involving alleged deficiencies in drug administration, patient care, compliance with instructions and the avoidance of harm. The court was not required to determine the merits of those allegations. Their seriousness was sufficient to explain the original suspension and supported the conclusion that the statutory test remained satisfied.

5. The court considered the guidance identified by the Court of Appeal in the analogous medical disciplinary regime in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chi Chung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The proposed substantive hearing was relevant to the length of the extension. Four months allowed a margin for rearrangement or a hearing running part-heard, while recognising that the matter required a prompt conclusion and should not ordinarily leave the respondent suspended for an unnecessarily prolonged period.

The judgment describes successive interim suspension decisions by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Investigating Committee and Conduct and Competence Committee. The Administrative Court then considered the Council’s application for a further extension under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.