The Nursing and Midwifery Council v Sargeant

Where a professional remains suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, the court must balance public protection against the serious impact of suspension on the individual’s livelihood. A regulatory body must progress the case with reasonable expedition. A lengthy delay may make a further extension inappropriate unless there is a very good reason. The court may grant a limited extension while making clear that further extensions will not readily be granted.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council sought a further extension of an existing suspension order concerning Sargeant. The alleged conduct had occurred in 2007, but the disciplinary hearing had not yet taken place. The Council accepted that the existing order was due to expire on 19 February 2010 and sought further time to arrange the hearing.

The central issue was the appropriate duration of any further extension, having regard to the Council’s delay, the effect of suspension on Sargeant’s ability to work, and the need for public protection.

1. Limited extension granted. The existing suspension order was extended until 19 August 2010, a period of six months.
2. The court regarded the delay as intolerable. Approximately three years had elapsed since the relevant events, and the matter appeared relatively straightforward. The Council had been depressingly slow in preparing the case and arranging a hearing.
3. Suspension deprives a person of their livelihood. Although public protection is an important consideration, it does not justify regulatory inaction. A regulator which seeks continuing suspension must progress the disciplinary proceedings promptly.
4. The six-month extension was intended to ensure that the Council proceeded without further delay. Any further application would require a very good reason, and the court warned that it might refuse to extend the suspension again.

Not stated in the judgment.