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

An interim suspension order may be extended where the seriousness of the allegations indicates a risk of serious harm to patients and continuation is necessary for public protection and confidence in the profession. Failure to review the order within the statutory intervals is a significant factor when fixing the period of any extension. Although the criteria for continuation may be satisfied, delay in the investigation and defective reviews may justify granting a shorter extension than requested.

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent under Article 31 (8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001. The order arose from allegations that the respondent improperly administered insulin, failed to report the administration, altered the medication chart and thereby caused a hypoglycaemic event.

The order was due to expire before the respondent’s substantive conduct and competence hearing. The Council sought a further six-month extension. The respondent did not attend and was unrepresented. The central issues were whether the statutory criteria for extension were met and what period of extension was appropriate in light of delay and failures to conduct reviews at the required intervals.

1. Application granted in part. The interim suspension order was extended for three months, rather than the six months sought.
2. On the material before the court, the seriousness of the allegations indicated that the respondent presented a risk of serious harm to patients and was prepared to conceal his conduct. The court was therefore satisfied that the criteria for extending the interim order under Article 31 (8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 were met.
3. Article 31 (6) required the committee to review an interim order within six months of its making and thereafter at three-monthly intervals. The order had not been reviewed within the first six months. Although later reviews had occurred at regular intervals, the earlier non-compliance remained relevant.
4. The delay in the investigation and the failure to conduct reviews at the required intervals weighed against granting the full period requested. The imminent substantive hearing also meant that only a short extension was necessary. The order was accordingly extended for three months.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined the Council’s application at first instance.