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

[2012] EWHC 1559 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 1559 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
20 April 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional discipline Interim suspension orders
Keywords
Nursing regulation Fitness to practise Interim suspension order Protection of the public Public interest Professional misconduct Nursing and Midwifery Council
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An interim suspension order may be extended where the statutory requirements for extension are met, including that extension is necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest. The court may grant an extension for a reasonable period, taking account of the progress and likely duration of fitness-to-practise proceedings, together with an appropriate margin for possible delay. The maximum extension available from the court is twelve months.

Factual background

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order made against the defendant, a nurse, for a further ten months. The order had originally been made in October 2010 and had been reviewed four times. The defendant had been suspended and subsequently erased from the Irish nursing register after failing to comply with a condition concerning a return-to-practice course.

The NMC alleged that she had obtained nursing employment in Guernsey without disclosing her Irish suspension, had given a misleading explanation for a gap in her curriculum vitae, and had acted incompetently. The issue was whether a further interim suspension was required and, if so, whether the proposed ten-month period was reasonable.

Held

  1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for ten months.
  2. The court considered the statutory requirements as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Hiew. Protection of the public required continuation of the suspension.
  3. The allegations plainly raised a case to answer. They were due to be considered by the NMC’s Investigating Committee, and a substantive hearing might take several months if the matter were referred onward.
  4. The court accepted that ten months was a reasonable period. It allowed a practical margin for delay caused by matters such as sickness, while recognising the defendant’s concern about delay. The maximum extension available from the court was twelve months.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.