Nursing and Midwifery Council v Puckering

Under Article 31.9 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, an interim suspension of a nurse’s registration may be extended where it remains necessary for public protection, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the registrant’s own interest.

The court should weigh the evidenced risk of relapse and the consequences of unrestricted practice against the prejudice caused by continued suspension. A short extension may be appropriate where the substantive disciplinary proceedings are imminent but may not be concluded immediately.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim order suspending the respondent’s registration as a nurse. The previous order had been extended on 1 May 2014.

The respondent had been served with the application and supporting papers, but did not object and was not represented. The court considered a psychiatric report which identified recurrent depressive disorder and a risk of renewed depressive symptoms if the respondent encountered future stress. The application arose against allegations of intimidating behaviour towards colleagues and threats of suicide at work. The issue was whether the interim order should be extended pending determination by the Council’s Health Committee.

1. The application was granted under Article 31.9 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The interim order suspending the respondent’s registration as a nurse was extended for three months, until 4 pm on 4 February 2015.

2. The court was satisfied that the order remained necessary to protect the public, was otherwise in the public interest, and was in the respondent’s own interest. Although the psychiatrist found no current evidence of mental health problems, the diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder and the identified risk of future depressive symptoms remained relevant to the protective assessment.

3. The allegations of intimidating behaviour towards colleagues and threats to kill herself at work justified continued restriction. It was not in the public interest, or in the respondent’s interest, for her to resume unrestricted nursing practice before the Health Committee had fully adjudicated the substantive matter.

4. The substantive hearing was scheduled for 12 November 2014, but might not finish on that date. The requested three-month period was therefore proportionate and sufficient to allow the Health Committee to determine the matter.

5. The delay since the previous extension was explained by the time taken to obtain the respondent’s consent to medical examination and was beyond the Council’s control. The risk of relapse outweighed the potential prejudice caused by continuing the interim suspension. No order for costs was made.