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

When extending an interim suspension order, the court must decide what period is necessary and proportionate in light of the statutory purpose and the remaining procedural steps. Serious allegations concerning the treatment of vulnerable patients may justify continuation of suspension in the public interest and for public protection. The court should nevertheless grant only the period reasonably required to complete the investigation and disciplinary process, rather than automatically granting the maximum period sought.

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed against a nurse under Article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The order had originally been made on 9 July 2009. The defendant faced allegations of mistreating elderly and vulnerable patients while employed at Woking Community Hospital. The allegations related to conduct between 2001 and 2008 and had been referred to the Council in February 2009 after the defendant’s dismissal for gross misconduct.

The defendant did not attend the hearing or participate in the Council’s processes. The Council sought a further extension of 12 months. The central issue was the appropriate length of any extension.

1. The application was made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, following an interim suspension order made under Article 31(2).
2. Under Article 31(2), an interim suspension order may be made where suspension is necessary for the protection of members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned. The review provisions require continuing review of the order under Article 31(6).
3. The allegations were serious and concerned the mistreatment of elderly and vulnerable patients over a prolonged period. Those circumstances established that continuation of the suspension was necessary for public protection and in the public interest.
4. The age of the allegations did not, in itself, justify refusing an extension. The delay before the matter reached the Council was not attributable to the Council. Some further delay arose from the number of witnesses and the preparation of the external investigators’ report.
5. The court was required to assess the period needed for the remaining stages of the process. Although the Council sought 12 months, the proportionate period was nine months. The interim suspension order was therefore extended for nine months.