Nursing and Midwifery Council v Richards

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court should consider the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay in concluding the substantive proceedings, and the prejudice to the practitioner. A lengthy period of suspension is a concern, but continuation may be justified where the substantive hearing is nearing completion, the allegations and risks are grave, and prejudice to the practitioner is minimal or absent.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim suspension order concerning a registered nurse alleged to have been involved in mistreatment, neglect and deaths at a nursing home during the police investigation known as Operation Jasmine. The order had been continued by earlier High Court orders and was due to expire on 1 November 2014. The substantive Conduct and Competence Committee hearing was ongoing and was not expected to conclude until late spring or early summer 2015. The respondent consented to a further nine-month extension and did not attend or oppose the application.

1. The application to extend the interim suspension order was granted by approval of the consent order. The order was continued until 4 pm on 1 August 2015.
2. In exercising the discretion under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court had regard to the guidance in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The relevant matters were the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reason why the case had not been concluded, and prejudice to the practitioner if the order continued.
3. The allegations concerned alleged mistreatment, neglect and deaths of patients and therefore involved allegations and risks of significant magnitude. The substantive hearing was already in progress and was expected to conclude within a further limited period, which provided reassurance despite the fact that the process had lasted more than three years.
4. The respondent had indicated that she did not intend to practise as a nurse thereafter. Accordingly, there was little, if any, prejudice to her from continuation of the interim order. Those considerations justified the extension sought.

The judgment concerns a first-instance application to extend an interim suspension order. The judgment records that the order had previously been continued by three separate High Court orders, the last made on 25 October 2013, but gives no citations for those orders.