Nursing & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Mukwasa

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order imposed on a professional registration, the court applies the same criteria as for making the order: protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant’s own interests. It may consider the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the registrant. The court does not determine the truth of the allegations or the merits of the substantive case. It asks whether the allegations themselves justify continuing the order.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further six-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent’s registration. The order had originally been made under article 31(2) after allegations concerning inadequate clinical competence, communication, knowledge and understanding, together with concerns about alcohol consumption.

The respondent did not appear or respond to the application. The central issue was whether the allegations and the procedural circumstances justified extending the order until the substantive disciplinary hearing could be scheduled.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for a further six months.

2. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the criteria for extending an interim order are the same as those for making one. They include protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant’s own interests.

3. Applying General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court may consider the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the substantive case has not concluded and any prejudice to the registrant.

4. The court must not make primary findings of fact about the events underlying the suspension or determine the merits of the substantive allegations. The relevant question is whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justify prolonging the interim order.

5. The allegations raised serious public-protection concerns. A case to answer had been found, the Council had sought to progress the matter expeditiously, and a substantive hearing was expected shortly. The circumstances therefore justified a further six-month extension.