The Nursing And Midwifery Council v Rees

On an application to extend an interim professional suspension, the court must consider all relevant evidence and be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that continuation is necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest. Relevant matters include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay, the stage of the disciplinary proceedings and the prejudice to the practitioner. Public confidence in the profession may also be relevant. The court may grant a further extension where the proceedings are being progressed and are near completion, provided the period sought is realistic and proportionate.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order made under article 31(2). The respondent’s registration had been suspended since December 2013 following allegations that she had stolen medication for personal use and concerns about alcohol dependence affecting her clinical judgment. The substantive disciplinary hearing had been adjourned part heard and was due to resume in January 2016. The issue was whether a further four-month suspension was justified for public protection and in the public interest.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended to 17 April 2016.
2. The proper approach was that stated by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, which was applicable despite the different disciplinary regime. The court had to consider the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the proceedings had not concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner.
3. Under article 31(2) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the Council had to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the extension was necessary for protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest.
4. The allegations were serious and involved potential risks to patients. The respondent admitted continuing alcohol dependence, creating a risk to her clinical judgment and ability to work professionally.
5. Although there had been delay and this was the fourth extension application since December 2014, the respondent had not fully engaged with the proceedings and the case had been transferred to the Health Committee after health issues emerged. The proceedings were near completion and efforts had been made to progress them.
6. The potential prejudice from continued suspension was recognised, but no actual prejudice had been identified. The public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession supported continuation. A four-month extension was an appropriate and realistic period for completion of the proceedings.