Nursing and Midwifery Council v Carthy

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator is properly pursuing an investigation into allegations which, if proved, raise serious concerns for public protection. The court must consider delay in the investigation and may limit the extension accordingly. The respondent’s lack of prejudice is relevant but cannot determine the application. A further extension requires the regulator to return to court and justify both the continuing need for the order and the progress made.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order concerning allegations that a registered nurse had dragged a patient with mental disabilities across a floor on two occasions. The order was due to expire after a substantial investigative delay. Criminal proceedings had concluded without a finding of guilt, and the Council’s final investigative report had only recently been completed. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The central issue was whether the statutory regulatory process and the protection of the public justified continuing the interim order.

1. Extension granted. The interim suspension order was extended until 4 pm on 22 September 2010. There was no order for costs.
2. The court had to be satisfied that the Council was properly pursuing its investigation and that the allegations, if true, raised serious concerns requiring protection of the public. The allegations concerning the treatment of a vulnerable patient by a nurse met that threshold, subject to proof of the allegations.
3. The investigative delay was material. Although the Council was now pursuing the matter with proper determination, the delay required the court to grant only a six-month extension.
4. The respondent’s apparent disappearance, resignation and stated intention not to seek further nursing employment might reduce prejudice from continuation of the order. They could not, however, determine whether the order should continue.
5. If a further extension remained necessary after six months, the Council would have to return to court and justify the progress made and the continuing need for the order. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice, to apply to vary or discharge the order.