Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ojonugwa

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order affecting a healthcare professional, the court should assess the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. Any prejudice caused by continued suspension must be weighed against the public risk. An extension may be justified where serious proven misconduct creates a significant risk to patients and the delay is not attributable to regulatory default.

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 a registered nurse. The order had previously been extended by the High Court. The respondent had been convicted of serious dishonesty offences and sentenced to imprisonment, while a proposed appeal against conviction remained outstanding. Her professional disciplinary hearing had been postponed pending the criminal appeal. The central issue was whether a further five-month extension was justified.

1. The application was granted and the interim suspension order was extended for five months from 19 November 2014.
2. In deciding whether to extend an interim order, the court followed the guidance in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The relevant considerations included:
   • the gravity of the allegations;
   • the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients;
   • the reasons why the case had not been concluded; and
   • prejudice to the practitioner if the order continued.
3. The disciplinary delay was not attributable to any want of prosecution by the Council. It had been caused or materially contributed to by difficulties obtaining relevant police materials and by awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial.
4. Although continued suspension inevitably had the potential to prejudice the respondent, the actual prejudice was limited because she was detained in connection with immigration investigations.
5. The respondent’s convictions for serious dishonesty created a very significant potential risk of harm to patients. That risk clearly outweighed the potential prejudice caused by continuing the suspension, particularly given the relatively short period before the disciplinary process was expected to be resolved.

not stated in the judgment.