Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ademiluyi

When deciding whether to extend an interim regulatory order, the decision-maker should consider the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients or the public, the reasons why the case has not concluded, and the prejudice caused by continuing the order. Serious dishonesty allegations may justify continuation where honesty is fundamental to the profession and unrestricted practice presents a public risk. The prejudice to the practitioner must still be considered, although it may be minimal where the practitioner is not lawfully permitted to work. An extension should not become open-ended: if proceedings remain unresolved, the regulator must be able to explain the delay.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order to extend an interim suspension order concerning a registered nurse. The order had originally been made under article 31(2) after allegations that the respondent had used false identity and employment documents, had overstayed in the United Kingdom, and had never had permission to work. Criminal proceedings for possession of false identity documents and fraud were pending, and the regulatory investigation was on hold. The issue was whether a further 10-month extension was justified.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for 10 months from 30 November 2014, expiring on 29 September 2015.

2. In determining whether an interim order should be extended, the court applied the approach in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The relevant considerations were the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk and potential harm to patients, the reason why the case had not concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner caused by continuation of the order.

3. The allegations involved a serious criminal charge with a strong element of dishonesty. Honesty was a key requirement for a registered nurse, and dishonesty undermined the basis on which a nurse could practise. There was also a public risk because the respondent had never had permission to work in the United Kingdom and might not be a qualified nurse.

4. The court recognised that suspension could prejudice the respondent by restricting her ability to work. On the evidence, however, that prejudice was minimal because she was not permitted to work lawfully in the United Kingdom. The circumstances therefore justified continuation of the order while the criminal proceedings remained pending.

5. The extension was not intended to be indefinite. If the proceedings had not progressed or concluded by 29 September 2015, the Council would need to provide a good reason for the continuing delay.

The judgment records no appeal. It describes the prior making and periodic review of the interim order by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Investigating Committee.