Nursing and Midwifery Council v Churchyard

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order, the court applies the same criteria as for the original order. It considers the protection of the public, the public interest and the practitioner’s own interests. Relevant factors include the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the practitioner. The court does not determine disputed primary facts or the merits of the disciplinary case. It asks whether the allegations, whether true or false, justify continuation of the interim restriction. The applicant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further three-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the defendant. The substantive disciplinary hearing had been delayed by procedural unfairness, the defendant’s hospitalisation and intermittent engagement with the process. The allegations included an incorrect dose causing a patient’s skin burn, administration of unprescribed ointment, failure to record treatment and incidents involving incontinence pads. The defendant did not attend the application. The central issue was whether a further extension was justified.

The application was granted and the interim suspension order was extended for a further three months.

1. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, the court may extend an interim order made by a Practice Committee and may grant further extensions.
2. Applying General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] 1 WLR 2007, the criteria for an extension are the same as those governing the original interim order. The court considers protection of the public, the public interest and the practitioner’s own interests.
3. The relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the substantive case has not concluded and the prejudice caused to the practitioner by continuation of the order. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the court on the balance of probabilities.
4. The court’s task is not to make primary factual findings or determine the merits of the allegations. It must decide whether the allegations, whether true or false, justify extending the suspension.
5. The allegations concerning an incorrect dose causing actual harm, unprescribed treatment and unrecorded treatment created a sufficient public protection and public interest basis. The recent delay was substantially connected with giving the defendant an opportunity to re-engage. A shorter extension was unrealistic because of notice requirements and the Christmas and New Year period.