Nursing and Midwifery Council v Walker

[2012] EWHC 2437 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 2437 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
15 August 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional discipline Interim protective orders
Keywords
interim suspension order public protection professional regulation nursing misconduct regulatory delay Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 Article 31(8)
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An interim suspension order may be extended where it remains appropriate and necessary for public protection. Serious allegations concerning clinical care may justify continuation despite investigative delay, provided the court is satisfied that the order remains necessary. The court may grant a further 12-month extension where the regulatory investigation is continuing and the case is expected to be heard within that period.

Factual background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent. The allegations concerned failures in the clinical care of a 10-year-old child during an emergency, resulting in the child’s death. Investigation had been delayed by difficulties identifying ambulance crew members and obtaining a statement from an absent witness. The respondent, although represented by the Royal College of Nursing, did not attend or make representations.

The central issue was whether the existing suspension remained appropriate and necessary for the protection of the public.

Held

  1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for a further 12 months under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.
  2. The court was satisfied that the order remained appropriate and necessary for the protection of the public. The allegations were very serious and concerned alleged failures in treatment and procedure following an emergency involving a child.
  3. Delay in the regulatory investigation did not prevent an extension. The delay arose from difficulties in identifying relevant ambulance crew members and obtaining evidence from an important witness who was on long-term sick leave. Those problems were relevant, but did not displace the continuing need for public protection.
  4. The case was expected to be ready for hearing within the extended period, following further consideration by the Investigating Committee and subsequent procedural steps.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

Not stated in the judgment.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.