The Health and Care Professions Council, R (on the application of) v Mitchell

An interim suspension order may be extended only for the period justified by the protection of the public and the public interest. The court must scrutinise the regulator’s progress and determine what extension is reasonably necessary. The absence of opposition by the registrant does not relieve the court of that function. Regulatory proceedings should be organised and conducted promptly. Where a case is ready to proceed, a lengthy extension is unjustified unless the regulator provides adequate justification.

The Health and Care Professions Council applied under article 31 of the Health and Social Works Professions Order for a further 12-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on a registered paramedic. The order had been made while criminal proceedings and related regulatory allegations were being considered. The defendant did not oppose the application.

The central issue was the period of extension justified by the protection of the public and the public interest, having regard to the Council’s readiness to proceed with the regulatory charge.

1. The application was justified in principle. The Council had needed to await the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, and an extension of the interim suspension order was therefore warranted under article 31 of the Health and Social Works Professions Order.
2. The court applied the principles identified by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew, [2007] EWCA Civ 369; [2007] 1 WLR 2007. The court’s function was to determine what period of interim protection could properly be justified, rather than simply to approve the period sought or consented to by the regulator and registrant.
3. A 12-month extension was not justified. The Council had been ready to proceed since 3 September 2014, and it should have been feasible for a regulator to arrange the hearing substantially earlier than January 2016. The fact that the defendant did not oppose the application did not determine the proper period.
4. The extension was therefore granted only until June 31 2015. If the matter could not then proceed and be determined, the Council would have to return to court and justify any further extension. Regulatory proceedings were not to be conducted in a dilatory manner.