Nursing And Midwifery Council v Binks

The Administrative Court may extend an interim suspension order where the extension remains necessary and proportionate to protect the public and is supported by the surrounding procedural circumstances. The court should remain alert to delay, particularly where an order initially intended to last for a substantially shorter period has continued for several years. A further extension may nevertheless be justified where the substantive fitness-to-practise hearing is imminent and the respondent consents or acquiesces to the period sought.

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 the respondent. The order had initially been made on 16 November 2011 for 18 months, but the regulatory proceedings had not concluded.

The respondent did not attend and was unrepresented. She had received notice, signed a consent form, did not oppose the application, and consented to the proposed three-month extension. A fitness-to-practise hearing had been adjourned after the NMC amended the charge to reflect revised medical evidence, and was listed to resume on 14 November 2014.

1. The application to extend the interim suspension order for three months was granted under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

2. The court noted that the original 18-month period had been intended to allow the NMC to complete its investigation, yet nearly three years had elapsed. The judge associated himself with earlier judicial dissatisfaction concerning the length of the process. Delay was therefore a material consideration.

3. Despite that delay, a further extension was justified. The substantive hearing had been adjourned because proceeding on an amended charge in the respondent’s absence would have been unfair, and the hearing was due to resume within approximately two weeks.

4. The respondent had been properly notified, did not oppose the application, and consented to the requested period. In those circumstances, the court was prepared to accommodate a further three months, including provision for any unforeseen difficulty in convening or completing the panel hearing.

5. The order was made in the terms of the draft order.