Nursing and Midwifery Council v Greenan

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension of a registered nurse, the court must assess the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of harm to patients, together with the reasons for delay and any prejudice to the registrant. The public interest may justify an extension where serious allegations remain unresolved and the substantive hearing is underway, even though delays are regrettable. The order should be limited to the period reasonably required and may permit the registrant to apply for variation.

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 Sara Greenan, a newly qualified nurse. The allegations concerned unauthorised administration of medicines without supervision and alleged dishonesty in concealing that conduct.

The interim suspension had been imposed for 18 months and was due to expire while the substantive hearing was in progress. The respondent did not attend or make representations. The central issue was whether a further three-month extension was necessary in the public interest.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended until 4.00 pm on 24 July 2013. The respondent was given permission, on three days’ written notice to the Council, to apply to vary the order. There was no order as to costs.
2. Under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court considered whether continuation of the interim suspension was necessary in the public interest. In doing so, it had regard to the approach identified by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.
3. The relevant considerations included the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and any prejudice to the respondent if the extension were granted. The delays were regrettable, but the allegations were serious and the substantive hearing was underway.
4. On the information before the court, the hearing was likely to continue beyond the expiry of the existing order. A further extension was therefore necessary in the public interest, subject to its limited duration and the respondent’s liberty to seek variation.