Nursing and Midwifery Council v Eke- O- Lere

An interim suspension order may be extended where the regulator demonstrates that continued suspension is necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest. The court must consider whether suspension should continue in principle and whether the period sought is justified and proportionate. Delay in preparing a fitness-to-practise case is unfortunate, but does not necessarily prevent an extension where substantial and serious allegations remain to be heard, the case is proceeding, and the anticipated timetable reasonably requires further protection.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent for 12 months. The order arose from allegations that he had provided inadequate care to a community psychiatric patient who later committed suicide.

The order had been reviewed several times. The Council’s investigation had resulted in referral to its Conduct and Competence Committee and then to a hearing, but no hearing date had yet been fixed. The respondent did not oppose the application. The issue was whether the suspension remained necessary and whether the full extension sought was justified.

1. Extension granted. The interim suspension order made on 15 July 2009 was extended until 4pm on 13 January 2012.
2. Under article 31 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Council had to demonstrate that, in principle, the respondent’s suspension from practice should be prolonged and that continuation was necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest. The court applied the approach identified in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.
3. The allegations were substantial and serious. The case was going to proceed to a substantive hearing, and the Council had discharged the relevant evidential burden. The absence of a fixed hearing date did not defeat the application.
4. The delay was unfortunate, but the evidence indicated that four witnesses would be required and that arranging an early hearing convenient to all participants might be difficult. A hearing was anticipated between May and August 2011, with a possible further three-month period if an adjournment became necessary.
5. In those circumstances, continued suspension was necessary and the full 12-month extension was justified.

First-instance application in the Administrative Court. The judgment does not state any prior appeal or appellate decision in the present proceedings.