Nursing & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Mulhearn

[2014] EWHC 4229 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2014] EWHC 4229 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
27 November 2014
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional discipline Interim protective orders
Keywords
interim suspension professional discipline nursing registration protection of the public public interest prejudice Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 Article 31.9
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Under Article 31.9 of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001, an interim suspension of a registrant may be extended where it remains necessary to protect the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the registrant’s own interest. The court must assess the need for continued restriction pending substantive adjudication. Where the risk to the public from unrestricted practice outweighs any potential prejudice to the registrant, an extension is justified.

Factual background

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied for a further extension of an interim order suspending Peter Mulhearn’s registration. The respondent had been served with the application and supporting papers, but did not object, attend or appear by representation. The substantive misconduct proceedings were listed for hearing on 8 to 12 December 2014, although they might not conclude within that period. The issue was whether the interim suspension should be extended for a further three months.

Held

  1. The application was granted under Article 31.9 of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001. The interim order suspending the respondent’s registration was extended until 27 February 2015.
  2. The court was satisfied that the order remained necessary to protect the public. It was also otherwise in the public interest and in the respondent’s own interest, given the pending substantive adjudication.
  3. The allegations of misconduct justified continuation of the restriction. It was not in the public interest, nor in the respondent’s interests, for unrestricted nursing practice to resume before the Conduct & Competence Committee had fully adjudicated the matter.
  4. The respondent had shown no evidence of prejudice arising from the extension. In any event, the risk to the public from unrestricted practice outweighed any potential prejudice to him.

The order was therefore made for the requested three-month period.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

The judgment records no prior decision or appeal stage. It concerned the Council’s application to extend an interim suspension pending substantive proceedings before its Conduct & Competence Committee.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.