Health Care Professional Council v Taylor

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order in a professional regulatory case, the court should not determine the merits. It must assess the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients or service users, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the practitioner. The regulatory body bears the burden of satisfying the court that continuation is justified. The court considers whether the allegations, rather than their truth, warrant prolongation. An extension may be granted to allow a fair hearing, but its duration should reflect the need for expedition and avoid disproportionate interference with the practitioner’s ability to work.

The Health Care Professional Council applied to extend an interim suspension order imposed on a registered social worker following concerns about her health and fitness to practise. The order had already been extended once. The respondent was unrepresented and had not attended earlier proceedings, while the evidence relied upon was said to be substantially out of date and hearsay-based.

The court considered whether the allegations justified further continuation of the order, having regard to the respondent’s willingness to attend a hearing at a more convenient venue and to undergo an updated medical assessment, together with the substantial delay in concluding the regulatory proceedings.

1. Applicable principles. The court’s function on an application to extend an interim suspension order is not to decide the merits or make findings of fact. It must consider whether the allegations, assuming their seriousness but not their truth, justify prolonging the order. The guidance in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 applied equally to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Health Care Professional Council.
2. The relevant considerations were the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients or service users, the reasons why the case had not been concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner from continuation of the interim order. The burden rested on the regulatory body to satisfy the court that those criteria justified an extension.
3. The allegations appeared to be weakly supported by distant hearsay, and more recent direct medical evidence appeared not to have been sufficiently considered. The court nevertheless regarded the respondent’s newly established willingness to attend the hearing, accept an updated medical report, and tolerate some delay to secure participation as sufficient, but only just, to justify continuation.
4. The requested 12-month extension was disproportionate. More than three years would otherwise have elapsed since the initial concerns, and the concerns related to health rather than alleged misconduct. An extension was therefore granted for six months only, until 20 May 2015, to maintain pressure on the regulatory body to conclude the proceedings promptly.