Nursing and Midwifery Council v Pikuda

When extending an interim suspension order, the court must independently ensure that continuation is proper, even where the registrant consents and does not attend. The relevant considerations are protection of the public, the wider public interest and, where relevant, protection of the registrant. An extension must remain necessary, appropriate and proportionate. A registrant’s stated intention to retire does not by itself remove the need for suspension, particularly where the allegations concern serious failures in fundamental professional practice and there remains a risk of a change of mind.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further six-month extension of an interim suspension order made against the defendant under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The allegations concerned failures in the care of a patient with dementia and failures to maintain adequate records. The defendant consented to the application, did not attend, and indicated that she had retired. The issue was whether the order should properly continue pending investigation and referral to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

1. The application for a further six-month extension of the interim suspension order was granted. The court had to assess the continuation of the order for itself, notwithstanding the defendant’s signed consent and decision not to attend the hearing.
2. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court considered the same criteria as the relevant panel: protection of the public, the wider public interest and, where relevant, protection of the registrant.
3. Having considered the papers, the court found the existing suspension appropriate, proportionate and necessary for public protection. The allegations were serious and involved fundamental nursing practice. The ongoing procedural delay, including investigation, referral and the need to coordinate a hearing with two other cases, did not prevent continuation of the order.
4. The defendant’s stated intention to retire did not make the order unnecessary. The order remained justified to guard against a change of mind and to reassure the public.

The interim suspension order was extended for a further six months.