Nursing and Midwifery Council v Murray

Under Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, art 31(8), the court may extend an interim order where the substantive regulatory proceedings may not be completed before the existing order expires. The extension must be proportionate to the procedural timetable and may be made subject to a right to seek variation or discharge. An absent respondent’s failure to engage with the regulatory process does not prevent an extension where protection of the public and the proper completion of the proceedings justify it.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a five-month extension of an interim order imposed on the respondent, a registered nurse facing allegations concerning unsafe care, insensitive communication, inadequate records and inappropriate language towards a resident.

The respondent had ceased engaging with the disciplinary process, stated that he did not intend to work in nursing again, and indicated that he would not attend either the interim-order hearing or the forthcoming substantive hearing. The application concerned whether the interim order should be extended under Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, art 31(8), pending completion of the substantive hearing.

1. Application granted. The interim order was extended for five months, expiring on 3 February 2012.
2. Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 empowered the court to extend the interim order. The court was satisfied that an extension was justified because the substantive hearing, listed for three days and involving three live witnesses, might not be completed before the existing period ended.
3. The respondent’s allegations included failures to provide safe and competent care, communicate sensitively with a resident’s family and maintain adequate records, together with an alleged inappropriate remark to another resident. The Practice Committee had considered the interim order necessary for public protection, the public interest and the respondent’s own interests.
4. The respondent’s limited engagement, including his stated refusal to attend the proceedings or co-operate with examination, did not prevent continuation of the interim protection while the disciplinary process remained unresolved. The extension was limited to the period required by the anticipated hearing timetable.
5. The respondent was permitted, on giving three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to the court to vary or discharge the order. No order for costs was made.