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

An interim suspension order may be extended where the allegation is serious and continued suspension remains necessary for public protection, in the public interest or in the registrant’s own interest. The court must consider prejudice to the registrant, including any evidence of hardship, and whether the regulator has complied with procedural requirements and is taking reasonable steps to progress the substantive hearing. A real risk of significant harm to patients and damage to public confidence in the integrity of the profession may justify continuation.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further nine-month extension of an interim suspension order made against a registered nurse under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The order followed allegations that the respondent had taken drugs from a medicine trolley and had subsequently been dismissed for gross misconduct.

The respondent did not attend or make representations at the regulatory reviews or at the court hearing. The Council had referred the matter for a substantive conduct and competence hearing, but the hearing was unlikely to take place before November 2010 because of the existing queue. The issue was whether the interim suspension should be extended.

1. Extension granted. The interim suspension order was extended for nine months under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

2. The allegation was serious. It carried a real risk of significant harm to patients and undermined the trust which the public was entitled to place in the integrity of the medical profession. Those considerations supported continuation of the suspension for public protection and in the public interest.

3. The court considered prejudice to the respondent. No evidence of hardship had been provided. The available correspondence suggested that concerns about financial hardship were reduced because the respondent had moved back in with her parents.

4. The Council had complied with the procedural requirements. It had referred the case for a substantive hearing and intended to expedite the hearing date, although listing difficulties meant that the hearing was unlikely to occur before November 2010.

5. The respondent’s repeated failure to attend or make representations did not prevent the court from determining the application. In the circumstances, continuation of the interim order was appropriate.