Nursing and Midwifery Council v Brown

An interim suspension order may be extended where the court is satisfied that continuation is appropriate, proportionate and necessary for the protection of the public. The court should consider the seriousness of the allegations, whether workable conditions could adequately manage the risk, and the practical timing of the substantive disciplinary hearing. Financial hardship is relevant, but does not prevent continuation where the order concerns professional registration and the registrant remains able to undertake other employment.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the registrant under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The registrant faced allegations concerning repeated failures in drug assessments, inadequate patient observations, and failures to disclose disciplinary and regulatory matters.

The matter had been transferred to the Conduct and Competence Committee. A substantive hearing was listed for 24 to 27 September 2012, with a possibility that it might be part-heard. The registrant was served with notice but made no representations on the application. The issue was whether the existing suspension should be continued for a further four months.

1. The application to extend the interim suspension order for four months was granted. The order was continued from 17 August 2012.
2. The court was satisfied, having considered the papers, that continuation of the order was appropriate, proportionate and necessary for the protection of the public. The allegations were sufficiently serious to justify continued suspension pending the substantive hearing.
3. Conditions of practice had been considered at earlier interim order hearings. They were not adopted because no practical or workable formula could adequately address the seriousness of the allegations.
4. Financial hardship had also been considered. The order applied only to the registrant’s nursing registration and did not prevent her from undertaking other employment. That consideration did not outweigh the need for public protection.
5. The timing of the substantive hearing, including the possibility that it might be part-heard, justified the requested four-month period.

The judgment concerns an application to extend an interim suspension order made on 18 February 2011. The matter had subsequently been transferred to the Conduct and Competence Committee, with a substantive hearing listed for 24 to 27 September 2012.