Nursing and Midwifery Council v Apiado

An interim suspension order may be extended where the court considers that continuation is necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the risk of further harm, the progress and delay in the regulatory proceedings, and the imminence of the substantive hearing. Public protection and confidence in the regulatory process may outweigh the registrant’s interests where those risks remain.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant’s registration. The order had been in force for 18 months and was due to expire. The defendant faced allegations of inappropriate sexual activity with a vulnerable patient in a clinical setting and had been dismissed for gross misconduct.

The substantive regulatory hearing had been delayed, but was listed to commence shortly. The central issue was whether a further three-month extension was justified by public protection and the public interest.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for three months, until 7 February 2013.
2. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Order 2001, the court must decide whether continuation of the interim order is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The court had regard to the guidance in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 concerning applications to extend interim orders.
3. The assessment required consideration of all the circumstances. Relevant matters included the serious nature of the allegations, the risk of repetition and patient harm, the progress of the investigation and referral process, the delay, and the fact that a substantive public hearing had been scheduled.
4. Although there had been significant delay, the regulatory process had progressed to a listed hearing. If the order expired before that hearing, there remained a risk of patient harm and a danger that public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined.
5. In those circumstances, the need to protect the public and preserve public confidence outweighed the defendant’s interests. A further three-month extension was therefore necessary and in the public interest.