Nursing and Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Moran

The court may extend an interim conditions of practice order where the extension remains necessary for the protection of the public. The appropriate period depends on the anticipated progress of the substantive proceedings, the practitioner’s continuing restrictions, and any recent concerns arising during the order. Administrative delay does not prevent an extension, although the court should consider the circumstances and duration carefully. An order may also preserve the practitioner’s ability to apply, on notice, for variation or discharge.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for an eight-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order imposed on Frances Moran under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The order arose from allegations of drug errors, failures in clinical recording and escalation, permitting a patient to leave a ward without proper recording, and inappropriate discontinuance of treatment.

The substantive proceedings had been delayed. Ms Moran remained able to work under restrictions, but had recently been suspended by her employers following further incidents. The issue was whether the requested extension to 16 October 2012 was appropriate.

1. The application was granted. The interim order was extended to 4.00 pm on 16 October 2012.

2. Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 provided the statutory basis for extending the interim conditions of practice order. The overriding consideration was protection of the public.

3. The requested eight-month period was appropriate. The court took account of the anticipated listing of the substantive hearing between May and July 2012, the need for some flexibility, the fact that this was the first extension application, and the respondent’s continued ability to work subject to restrictions.

4. The recent suspension by the respondent’s employers following further incidents while the conditions remained in force supported continuation of the interim safeguards. The delays in progressing the case were acknowledged, but did not preclude the extension in the circumstances.

5. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to vary or discharge the order. There was no order as to costs.