Nursing and Midwifery Council v Millson

When deciding whether to continue an interim suspension imposed during professional disciplinary proceedings, the court must balance the gravity of the allegations and the risk of harm to patients against the reasons for delay and the prejudice to the registrant. Protection of the public may justify continuation despite delay, but the court should impose only a period reasonably required to enable the disciplinary hearing to take place. A suspension should not be extended for the full period sought where the regulator ought reasonably to list the case sooner.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a six-month extension of an 18-month suspension imposed on Mrs Millson, a registrant facing one outstanding professional misconduct allegation. The allegation concerned an attempted restraint of a vulnerable care-home resident and alleged failures relating to training and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The disciplinary hearing had been ready for listing since December 2012, but had been delayed by referral delays and difficulties within the Council. The respondent denied the allegation and was not represented at the application. The central issue was whether, and for how long, the suspension should continue pending the disciplinary hearing.

1. The application was made on short notice, but the court directed under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 23.7, that the notice was sufficient. The respondent had been informed of the intended application and had not made representations to the relevant panels.
2. In deciding whether to continue the suspension, the court had to consider the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the disciplinary proceedings had not been concluded, and the prejudice to the respondent.
3. The delay was material. Some of it resulted from the care home’s late referral and some from mishaps within the Council. The respondent suffered obvious prejudice from continued suspension. Nevertheless, the allegation concerned the treatment of vulnerable residents and the Council had an important duty to minimise risks to patients in care homes.
4. Having regard to protection of the public and patients, the suspension should not lapse. However, the Council had had the case ready for hearing since December 2012 and ought to be able to list it by the end of July 2013. A six-month extension was therefore excessive.
5. The suspension was continued only until the end of July 2013. The Council could apply for a further extension, explaining why that timetable could not be met. No order was made as to costs.

First-instance application in the Administrative Court. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.