Nursing and Midwifery Council v Jones

[2010] EWHC 876 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2010] EWHC 876 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
18 March 2010
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Public law Professional discipline
Keywords
interim order public protection professional regulation nursing serious criminal conviction public interest disciplinary proceedings extension of order
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An interim regulatory order may be continued where serious criminal convictions demonstrate an evident risk to the public and the respondent might otherwise resume professional work before disciplinary proceedings are resolved. The court may allow the period reasonably required for referral and hearing, including a further period to accommodate possible complications. The absence of questionable delay by the regulator supports continuation of the order.

Factual background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim order imposed on a nurse. The respondent had been convicted of serious sexual offences against persons in his care and sentenced to imprisonment. The order was due to expire shortly before the matter was expected to return to the investigating committee and potentially proceed to a conduct and competence hearing. The respondent was unrepresented and did not attend. The central issue was whether continuation of the interim order remained necessary for public protection and in the public interest, and for what period.

Held

  1. Application granted. The interim order was extended to 4pm on 22 March 2011.
  2. The respondent’s serious convictions provided evidence of the facts underlying the allegations. In those circumstances, continuation of the order was obviously necessary for protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest.
  3. The court considered that there should be no risk arising from the respondent’s release from custody, including the risk that he might seek to renew employment as a nurse before the Council’s proceedings were resolved.
  4. The anticipated return to the investigating committee and likely referral to the Conduct and Competence Committee justified allowing the full period sought, so that the order would remain effective while the disciplinary process progressed and in case further complications arose. The court found no questionable delay by the Council.
  5. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to vary or discharge the order. No order for costs was made.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

Not stated in the judgment.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.