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

When extending an interim suspension order against a registered nurse, the court applies the same criteria as for making the order. It considers protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant’s own interests. Relevant matters include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continued suspension.

The court does not determine disputed primary facts or the merits of the underlying allegations. It asks whether the allegations justify prolonging the interim order. Any extension must have proper grounds and must be limited to a period justified by the circumstances.

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the registration of Cliodhna Laura Finnegan. The order had been made in 2007 and extended on three previous occasions.

Disciplinary proceedings in the United Kingdom had found her fitness to practise impaired, but the sanction hearing remained incomplete. The Council sought a further six-month extension because the Conduct and Competence Committee was due to resume its hearing. The central issue was whether continued suspension was justified and, if so, for what period.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended to 4 pm on 25 November 2010. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice, to apply to vary or discharge the order. There was no order as to costs.
2. The criteria identified in Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 apply to an application to extend an interim order. They are the same criteria as for making the order: protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant’s own interests.
3. In applying those criteria, 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 proceedings have not concluded and the prejudice to the registrant caused by continued suspension.
4. The court does not determine primary facts concerning the underlying events or assess the merits of the suspension case. The question is whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justify prolonging the interim order.
5. The court remained vigilant because an interim suspension has a substantial impact on the registrant. Nevertheless, the protection of the public required an extension. A six-month period was justified by the need to complete the existing committee hearing and the possibility that unforeseen circumstances could prevent its immediate completion.