Nursing and Midwifery Council v Radford

The court may proceed in a regulatory application in the respondent’s absence where the respondent knows of the proceedings and is voluntarily absent. An interim suspension order may be extended where this is necessary for public protection, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the practitioner. In deciding whether to extend such an order, the court considers the seriousness of the allegations and potential harm, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. The court does not determine the substantive allegations. Public interest may justify continuation even where the practitioner says that she will not practise, particularly where the risk to patients is substantial and there is little or no practical prejudice.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend an interim order suspending the respondent’s registration as a nurse. The order had been imposed under article 31(2) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 and was due to expire before the substantive disciplinary hearing.

The respondent had sought removal from the register, had not attended earlier hearings, and did not oppose the application. The Council relied on serious alleged failures in basic nursing care, a similar separate incident, and a high assessed risk of repetition. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in the respondent’s absence and whether an extension was necessary for public protection or the public interest.

1. Proceeding in the respondent’s absence. Applying the principles in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1, the court was satisfied that the respondent knew of the proceedings and was voluntarily absent. It was therefore appropriate to proceed.
2. Applicable statutory test. The threshold for imposing and extending an interim suspension order was the same. Under article 31(9) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, an extension could be granted where necessary for public protection, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the practitioner.
3. Relevant considerations. Following the guidance in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court considered the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the potential harm to patients, the reasons why the substantive case had not concluded, and prejudice to the practitioner. The court’s role was not to make primary factual findings or determine the merits, but to decide whether the allegations justified prolonging the interim order.
4. The alleged failures involved serious deficiencies in basic nursing care. The risk to patients if the respondent resumed practice was substantial, supported by a similar incident and the investigating committee’s assessment of a high risk of repetition. Although the respondent had indicated that she would not practise, the public interest in maintaining confidence in regulatory protection remained relevant. Since she did not oppose continuation and had sought removal from the register, there was no practical prejudice to her.
5. The court granted the requested five-month extension under article 31(9), while noting that the proceedings might conclude sooner. The respondent retained permission to apply for review, variation or discharge if her intentions changed.