Nursing and Midwifery Council v Brooks

When reviewing an application to extend an interim conditions of practice order, the court applies the same criteria as the professional disciplinary panel. The relevant considerations are protection of the public, the wider public interest and, where appropriate, protection of the registrant. The order must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to those purposes. An extension may properly be granted where the disciplinary proceedings remain unresolved and the evidence, including admissions by the registrant, continues to justify protective conditions.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further nine-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order made under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The registrant faced allegations concerning medication errors, inaccurate records and administration of a prescription to the wrong patient.

The disciplinary proceedings had been delayed after a hearing became part-heard and a later hearing was adjourned because of a panel member’s bereavement. The resumed hearing was listed for 31 May 2012. The central issue was whether continuation of the protective order remained justified.

1. Application granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended for a further nine months.
2. In determining an application of this nature, the High Court applies the same criteria as the relevant professional panel. These include protection of the public, other public-interest considerations and, where relevant, protection of the registrant.
3. The order must be appropriate, proportionate and necessary for the protection of the public. The court was satisfied that the existing conditions met those requirements.
4. The allegations concerned failures to administer and record medication correctly, an erroneous entry on a prescription, and administration of a prescription to another patient. The court gave weight to the registrant’s admission to much of the alleged behaviour.
5. The court also took account of the pending disciplinary hearing and allowed some leeway in case the resumed hearing was delayed or adjourned again. No representations had been made by the registrant concerning hardship caused by continuation of the order.
6. The order was therefore continued until 10 November 2012.

The judgment describes earlier decisions by the Investigating Committee and Conduct and Competence Committee continuing, varying or replacing interim orders. The High Court had previously extended the order on 6 May 2011. No separate appellate history is stated.