The Nursing and Midwifery Council v Sengu

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order imposed to protect patients and the public, the court must balance the risks and public interests against the continuing prejudice to the respondent. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, patient safety, protection of the public, confidence in professional standards, and the reasons for delay. A further extension may be ordered where those considerations outweigh the respondent’s prejudice, but any later extension requires specific justification.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied for a further three-month extension of an interim suspension order against Sengu. The allegations concerned the presentation of allegedly false academic certificates in connection with nursing qualifications. The order had been in place since January 2015, and the substantive hearing was listed for 19 and 20 October 2017.

The court considered the delay, including difficulties caused by a parallel criminal investigation and the respondent’s delayed provision of information. The central issue was whether the public interest in patient protection and confidence in professional standards continued to outweigh the prejudice caused by maintaining the suspension.

1. The application for a further extension of the interim suspension order was granted. The order was extended to 4 p.m. on 12 January 2018.
2. In assessing continuation of an interim suspension, the court must weigh the gravity of the allegations, the risk to patients, protection of the public and confidence in the standards of the profession against any continuing prejudice to the respondent.
3. The reasons for delay are relevant to that assessment. Here, delay arose partly from difficulties obtaining information during the parallel criminal investigation and largely from the respondent’s delay in providing the standard directions form.
4. The allegations were grave, the substantive hearing had been fixed shortly thereafter, and the public interest considerations outweighed the respondent’s continuing prejudice.
5. The court warned that any further extension would require very specific justification in order to avoid continuing prejudice. The respondent was permitted, on three days’ written notice, to apply to vary or discharge the order. There was no order for costs.

Not stated in the judgment.