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

The court may extend an interim suspension order where the extension is justified by the seriousness of the allegations and the interests of public protection, provided the respondent is adequately protected procedurally. Relevant safeguards include notice of the application, an opportunity to apply to vary or discharge the order, and continuing statutory review. Delay must be examined fairly, including whether it is attributable to the regulator or to the respondent’s lack of cooperation. Where those safeguards exist, an extension may be made in the interests of justice.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed by a Practice Committee on 12 August 2011. The order had suspended the respondent’s registration for 18 months, and a further seven-month extension was sought to allow the regulatory process to progress.

The respondent was absent and unrepresented. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, delay in progressing the matter, the respondent’s lack of cooperation, and whether she had adequate notice and procedural protection.

1. The application under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for a further seven months.
2. The allegations concerned alleged misconduct in the treatment of vulnerable patients and care-home residents and were sufficiently serious to engage the public-protection purpose of the original suspension.
3. Delay was a relevant consideration, but it could not be attributed entirely to the Council. There had been difficulties obtaining documents and access to witnesses, while the respondent had shown a lack of cooperation and had not engaged with the process.
4. The principal procedural issue was whether the respondent had adequate notice and protection. The court was satisfied that papers were being received at the address provided and that the respondent had not attempted to engage with the application.
5. The extension was justified because safeguards were built into the order. The respondent could apply to the court at any time to vary or discharge it on substantive grounds. The suspension was also subject to statutory review every three months, with either party able to seek an early review.
6. The court was therefore satisfied that making the extension was in the interests of justice. The draft order was to specify clearly how the respondent could give the required written notice, including the relevant address and method of delivery.