Nursing and Midwifery Council v Harrison

[2016] EWHC 1742 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2016] EWHC 1742 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
21 January 2016
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional regulation Interim orders
Keywords
interim conditions of practice order extension of interim order public protection public interest professional discipline Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Before extending an interim conditions of practice order, the court must be satisfied that the extension 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. The court should consider the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and any prejudice to the respondent. An extension may be granted beyond the anticipated hearing date where proceedings may slip and the order will not continue beyond the hearing unless final resolution has not been reached.

Factual background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a three-month extension of an interim conditions of practice order concerning Amanda Jane Harrison. The allegations covered an eight-year period and the substantive hearing was listed for February. Mrs Harrison consented to the application, did not attend and identified no prejudice. The central issue was whether the statutory test for extending the interim order was satisfied.

Held

  1. The application was granted. The interim conditions of practice order was extended for three months.
  2. Under article 31(8) of the 2001 Order, an extension could be granted only if the court was satisfied that it was necessary for the protection of members of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the person concerned. The court was so satisfied, having regard in particular to the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of harm to patients.
  3. The court also considered the reasons why the proceedings had not concluded. The allegations spanned eight years and the investigation had necessarily been complex. The fact that the substantive hearing was listed for February did not prevent an extension for three months, since proceedings could slip.
  4. The order was the least restrictive form of interim order available to the relevant panels. There was no identified prejudice to Mrs Harrison, who did not oppose the application. The extension would continue beyond the scheduled hearing only if that hearing did not take place or had not reached final resolution.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.