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

When extending an interim suspension order concerning a regulated healthcare professional, the court must determine whether continuation is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the allegations, the specialist regulator’s original assessment, the respondent’s position, the progress and likely duration of the investigation, and continuing safeguards such as periodic review. An extension may be granted where those factors justify continued protection of the public and the public interest.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order concerning a registered nurse and midwife. The allegations concerned unsafe clinical practice and inappropriate professional conduct towards patients.

The order had originally been made by an investigating committee and had subsequently been reviewed several times. The investigation remained ongoing, with witness evidence still to be assessed and disciplinary proceedings yet to be scheduled. The central issue was whether a further 12-month extension was necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended until 4pm on 12 September 2010.
2. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, continuation of an interim suspension order required an assessment of whether it remained necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.
3. The court took into account the original decision of the specialist investigating committee that the allegations were sufficiently serious to justify suspension. It also considered that the allegations involved both unsafe clinical practice and inappropriate conduct towards patients.
4. The investigation had not yet reached the stage at which the case could be referred for final disposal. Eight witnesses had been interviewed, but their statements still required review before the case could proceed. The likely number of witnesses made an early hearing date difficult, and a 12-month extension was realistically required.
5. The absence of evidence that the respondent opposed continuation or wished to resume her nursing career was relevant, although earlier correspondence indicated that she had wished to challenge the order. The order would remain subject to review every three months by the investigating committee.
6. The respondent retained a right under article 31(12) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to apply to the court for amendment or revocation. Permission was also granted to apply, on three days’ written notice, to vary or discharge the order.