Nursing and Midwifery Council v Holmes

An interim suspension order may be extended where the court is satisfied that continuation is necessary for public protection or otherwise serves the public interest. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the risk of harm, the impact on public confidence in professional regulation, and the progress and causes of delay. The public interest may outweigh the registrant’s personal or financial interests.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on a mental health nurse. The order was due to expire on 17 January 2013, and a further six-month extension was sought while misconduct allegations remained unresolved. The respondent did not attend or make representations. The central issue was whether continuation of the interim order remained necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for six months, until 16 July 2013.
2. Under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court considered whether continuation of the order was necessary to protect the public and otherwise in the public interest. The court had regard to the guidance in General Medical Council v Hiew.
3. The allegations concerned serious risks to patients and colleagues, including obstructing alarm sensors, leaving a healthcare support worker alone on a ward where she was assaulted, failing to attend to an incontinent patient, and threatening conduct.
4. The court considered the history of the proceedings. Delay arose from difficulties obtaining witness statements and from adjournments requested or sought in connection with the substantive hearing. The respondent had been served but neither attended nor communicated with the Council.
5. Without continuation of the order, there remained a risk of patient harm and a danger that public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined. Those considerations justified the extension, notwithstanding the respondent’s financial circumstances.