Nursing and Midwifery Council v Domingues

The statutory period for interim suspension may be extended where the applicable criteria are satisfied. The court must nevertheless determine a period that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The extension should reflect the work genuinely required to conclude the regulatory proceedings, having regard to the public interest in prompt disposal and fairness to the respondent. An extension sought for substantially longer than necessary should be reduced.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied to extend the statutory 18-month period during which Domingues, a nurse, was suspended from practice on an interim basis. The application sought an additional eight months. Domingues, who was in Portugal and had experienced two brief psychotic episodes, had initially consented but withdrew that consent before the hearing. The respondent had been given nearly one month’s notice and did not attend or appear. The central issue was whether, and for how long, the statutory period should be extended to allow the ongoing regulatory investigation and hearing to be concluded.

1. Application granted in part. The statutory interim-suspension period was extended until 4.00 pm on 31 May 2016.
2. The court was satisfied that the criteria identified in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 were met. The applicable tests therefore permitted an extension of the statutory period.
3. The length of the extension required separate assessment. Eight months was considerably more than was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The court took account of the strong public interest in bringing the matter to an early conclusion, as well as fairness to the respondent, whose suspension and regulatory proceedings had already continued for some time.
4. The extension should be limited to the period reasonably required for the remaining procedural steps. On the evidence, little remained beyond fixing and holding the hearing. Although the NMC was busy, it should have been capable of convening the hearing within three months.
5. The court noted that the respondent had received adequate notice of the application. The case was therefore materially different from the notification concerns identified in Nursing and Midwifery Council v Kidd & Anor [2014] EWHC 847 (Admin).