Health and Care Professions Council v Oyedele

An interim suspension order may be imposed where the regulatory decision-maker is satisfied that suspension is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the registrant. In deciding whether to continue an interim order, the court may consider the seriousness and apparent strength of the allegations, the risk of repetition, the potential harm to service users, and the effect on public confidence. Where a substantive fitness-to-practise hearing is likely to be delayed for legitimate logistical reasons, a further extension may be appropriate. The registrant should be given liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order, particularly where service of the application is in question.

The Health and Care Professions Council applied to confirm and extend an interim suspension order imposed against a biomedical scientist. The allegations included potentially fraudulent employment references and qualifications, serious discrepancies in training and personnel records, and the issue of incompatible blood to a patient. The respondent had not attended the regulatory hearings and was not represented.

The interim order had been repeatedly reviewed and continued while criminal investigations and fitness-to-practise proceedings progressed. The substantive hearing had been joined with three other cases and was provisionally listed for May 2015. The central issue was whether a further 12-month extension was justified.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was confirmed and extended for 12 months.

2. Under article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, an interim order is justified where suspension is necessary for the protection of members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned.

3. The allegations were serious and included a serious clinical incident involving incompatible blood, suspected false qualifications and career history, and potentially fraudulent references. The investigating committee had identified a high risk that the alleged conduct might be repeated without an interim order and the risk of serious damage to public confidence if the respondent continued to provide services before the allegations were determined.

4. The court was initially concerned about the requested length of the extension. It nevertheless concluded that 12 months was appropriate because the substantive proceedings had been joined with other cases and could be delayed or go part heard for logistical reasons.

5. The respondent was given liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order on written notice to the applicant, including if it transpired that she had not been properly notified of the application.