Nursing and Midwifery Council v Mtisi

An interim order suspending a registered nurse may be extended where suspension remains necessary for public protection or is otherwise in the public interest. In deciding whether to extend the order, the court must weigh the gravity of the allegations and the protection required against the prejudice to the registrant. Administrative delay is relevant, but does not prevent an extension where the regulatory proceedings have thereafter progressed promptly and an effective substantive hearing is imminent.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim order suspending Tendai Mtisi’s registration. The order had been made by the Council’s Investigating Committee for 18 months and was due to expire. The allegations concerned the death of an elderly care-home patient in February 2007. There had been delay before referral to the Investigating Committee, attributed to administrative oversight, but a substantive hearing was listed before a Conduct and Competence Committee for 30 April to 3 May 2012. The defendant took no part in the application. The issue was whether continued suspension remained necessary pending that hearing.

1. Application granted. The interim order suspending the defendant’s registration was extended for six months.
2. The court was satisfied that continued suspension remained necessary for the protection of the public and was justified by the public interest. The relevant assessment had regard to the gravity of the allegations and the prejudice caused to the defendant by continued suspension.
3. The delay between the initial referral to the Council and notice of referral to the Investigating Committee was accepted to have resulted from administrative oversight. After referral, however, the proceedings had progressed relatively promptly and an effective substantive hearing was scheduled within the period of the extension.
4. The extension was granted until 22 August 2012. The court noted that, if a further extension were sought because the substantive hearing was ineffective, the Council would need to explain the developments so that any further application could be considered in that light.