Nursing & Midwifery Council v Gerrard

An interim suspension order may be extended where continuation is necessary for the protection of the public or otherwise in the public interest. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the underlying misconduct, the risk of harm if practice resumes, the stage reached in related disciplinary proceedings, and any prejudice or hardship to the practitioner. A fixed hearing date may justify an extension sufficient to accommodate a possible adjournment.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31.8 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on Bernadette Maria Gerrard’s registration. The order followed her charge and subsequent conviction for manslaughter arising from the death of a patient at a nursing home. The Council’s competence and conduct proceedings were listed for hearing on 17 May 2010. The respondent had notice of the application but made no representations. The issue was whether a further six-month extension was justified.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for six months from 17 March 2010.

2. Under article 31.8 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, continuation of an interim suspension order is justified where it is necessary for the protection of the public or otherwise in the public interest.

3. The court considered the seriousness of the respondent’s gross negligence, which had resulted in the death of a patient, and the importance of ensuring that there was no risk of harm to the public if she were permitted to practise. The respondent’s remorse and the passage of time did not outweigh those considerations.

4. The pending competence and conduct proceedings had a fixed hearing date. The requested period was reasonably required to ensure that the proceedings could be heard within the currency of the order if an adjournment became necessary.

5. The absence of representations opposing continuation, together with the absence of evidence of prejudice or hardship, supported the extension. Maintaining public confidence in the profession was an additional public-interest consideration.

Not stated in the judgment. The judgment records that the interim suspension order had previously been extended by the High Court on 18 March 2008 and 17 March 2009.