Nursing and Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Khoulowa

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order affecting a registrant’s professional registration, the court must weigh delay against the gravity of the allegations and the public interest in protecting patients. Delay may cause concern and may be capable of justifying refusal in an appropriate case. It does not necessarily prevent an extension where the allegations are sufficiently serious and the order remains necessary for public protection.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under section 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further six-month extension of an interim suspension order concerning Mr Khoulowa’s registration. The order had been repeatedly reviewed and extended while regulatory proceedings remained incomplete. The allegations concerned alcohol dependence, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarcts and detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The central issue was whether the further delay justified refusing the requested extension, despite the asserted need to protect patients.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for a further six months.

2. The court was concerned that the proceedings had still not been completed and that, with sufficient effort, they might have been brought to a conclusion without further intervention. The delay was therefore a relevant consideration.

3. Delay alone did not require refusal of the application. Having regard to the matters set out in the evidence, the allegations concerning Mr Khoulowa’s health were sufficiently grave to justify continuation of the order in the public interest and for the protection of patients.

4. The court therefore made the order sought under section 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.