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

An interim suspension order imposed for public protection and the public interest may be extended where the allegations are sufficiently serious, the substantive proceedings are listed for hearing, and continued suspension remains justified. Delay is a material concern and should not be treated lightly, particularly where previous extensions have been criticised. Nevertheless, delay does not necessarily prevent an extension where the case is approaching resolution and the risks associated with the allegations continue to justify interim protection.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further six-month extension of an interim suspension order concerning a staff nurse. The order had originally been made in January 2009 and extended in July 2010. The respondent faced serious allegations, including sexual assault of a patient and attempted theft of patient property. Although the proceedings had been delayed and the respondent was absent and unrepresented, a substantive hearing had been listed for May 2011.

The central issue was whether continued suspension remained necessary and justified despite the delay.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for a further six months, until 19 July 2011, with no order for costs.
2. In determining whether to extend an interim suspension order under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court must have regard to the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The purpose of the order is public protection and the public interest.
3. The delay was a significant concern. The proceedings had remained unresolved for about two years, and a previous judge had considered that the case should have concluded without further extensions. The apparent lack of co-operation by the respondent and his deportation were relevant contextual matters, but did not remove the Council’s responsibility to progress the case.
4. The seriousness of the allegations, together with the listing of a substantive hearing for 4–6 May 2011, meant that an outcome was in prospect. The justification for maintaining the suspension until then remained good.

not stated in the judgment.