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

An interim suspension order imposed by a professional regulator may be extended where the court is satisfied that continued suspension is necessary for the protection of the public or otherwise in the public interest. The court may consider the seriousness of the allegations, the potential risk to patients, and the practical likelihood that fitness-to-practise proceedings will not conclude before the existing order expires. An extension may therefore be justified to preserve protection until the substantive proceedings are concluded.

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied for a six-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on a nurse under article 31(2) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001. The order was due to expire on 20 July 2011.

The respondent faced allegations of dishonesty and misconduct after allegedly submitting falsified certificates to support a claimed high-dependency nursing qualification. The final fitness-to-practise hearing was listed for 28 and 29 July 2011, but several witnesses were involved and any adjournment or part-heard hearing could cause a delay of several months. The respondent did not attend the application hearing, although she had admitted the charges in correspondence.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order imposed on 21 January 2010, and subsequently reviewed, was extended for six months from 20 July 2011.
2. The governing consideration under article 31(2) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 was whether continuation of the order was necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest.
3. The allegations concerned dishonesty in submitting apparently falsified university certificates to obtain recognition of a high-dependency nursing qualification. If established, the misrepresentation could expose patients to serious harm because of the nature of the qualification.
4. The court also took account of the procedural position. Although a final hearing was imminent, the number of witnesses meant that the hearing might not proceed, might not finish, or might go part heard. In that event, further dates might not be available for several months. Maintaining the interim order pending conclusion of the proceedings was therefore necessary.
5. The respondent had been notified of the hearing and did not attend. Her earlier admission of the charges supported the continuation of protective measures, although the order was made on the statutory public-protection and public-interest grounds.

Not an appeal. The judgment does not state any prior appellate history.