The Nursing and Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Ikejiaku

An interim suspension order imposed by a professional regulatory body may be extended where the extension is necessary for public protection or is otherwise in the public interest. The court must consider the governing principles, the seriousness of the allegations, the progress of the regulatory proceedings, the reasons for delay, the effect on the respondent, and the period required before a substantive hearing. Where those matters justify continuation, the court may grant an extension for an appropriate period linked to the anticipated hearing date.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a six-month extension of an interim suspension order made against the respondent by its Practice Committee. The order had been extended previously to allow medical information concerning the respondent’s fitness to practise to be obtained. That information was provided, but the respondent’s representatives later ceased to act after losing contact with her. The Council also failed to secure her cooperation with a medical examination, and the matter was transferred back to the Conduct and Competence Committee. The issue was whether a further extension was justified to allow a four-day substantive hearing to be listed.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for six months.
2. The governing principles were those identified in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew, [2007] EWCA Civ 369; [2007] 1 WLR 2007, at paragraphs 31 to 33.
3. The allegations raised serious concerns about the respondent’s competence to practise as a nurse without supervision. That assessment had been made on the previous extension application and remained material.
4. The court considered the delay that had occurred and the effect of a further extension on the respondent. The delay had partly reflected attempts to obtain information about the respondent’s alleged Parkinson’s disease, followed by unsuccessful efforts to contact her and obtain her cooperation with a medical examination.
5. A further extension was justified in the circumstances. Six months was appropriate because the Council intended to list a four-day substantive hearing, anticipated to take place between February and May 2015, although arrangements with four witnesses might cause difficulty.

not stated in the judgment.