Nursing Mid-Wifery Council, R (on the application of) v Phiri

Under Article 31, continuation of an interim suspension order requires an application to the court. The court may extend the order where continuation is appropriate in light of the regulatory timetable, the progress of the investigation and the anticipated disciplinary hearing. Procedural fairness requires evidence that the respondent received notice of the application, including service at notified alternative addresses where appropriate.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under Article 31 to extend an interim suspension preventing Mr Phiri from practising. The suspension followed investigations into allegations concerning ten patients. The relevant panel referred the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee, which directed that the case proceed to a hearing expected to take place between January and March 2010.

Mr Phiri was neither represented nor present. The issue was whether the existing suspension should be extended for nine months, from 22 October 2009 to 22 July 2010.

1. The application was granted. Article 31 required a court application to continue the effect of the interim suspension order after the existing period expired.
2. The court was satisfied that continuation was appropriate. The investigation had progressed to referral to the Conduct and Competence Committee, and a disciplinary hearing was expected within the proposed extension period. No criticism could be made of the processing of the case.
3. The respondent’s absence did not prevent the application being determined. Evidence showed that notice had been served by registered or recorded delivery at three addresses: his last known United Kingdom residence and alternative addresses in South Africa and Zimbabwe notified to the Council.
4. The interim suspension was extended to 22 July 2010. The order gave the respondent liberty to apply to vary or discharge it on three days’ written notice. No order for costs was sought.