Nursing & Midwifery Council v Collins

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension order, the court must balance protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant’s interests. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the registrant. A lengthy investigation does not prevent further extension where the registrant remains a substantial danger to patients and the public interest requires protection. The court may also take account of the registrant’s lack of co-operation and the practical causes of delay.

The Nursing & Midwifery Council applied under article 31 of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order against a registered nurse. The order had previously been imposed following convictions involving driving with excess alcohol and criminal damage, together with disclosed mental-health and alcohol-related concerns.

The investigation had remained unresolved for nearly three years. The respondent had ceased co-operating, declined medical examination and did not attend the intended professional disciplinary process. The central issue was whether a further five-month extension was justified despite the passage of time and any prejudice to the respondent.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for five months, to 20 July 2017.
2. Under article 31(8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001, the court had to decide whether the order should be further extended. It applied the article 31 criteria: protection of the public, the public interest and the interests of the registrant.
3. The relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case had not been concluded and possible prejudice to the registrant. The court was required to assess those matters in the circumstances of the particular case, including the total period of suspension.
4. The respondent remained in a condition that would make him a source of substantial danger to patients if he practised. The risk of harm justified continuation of the order despite prejudice arising from the delay. The delay was partly attributable to the respondent’s recent non-co-operation and partly to earlier police delays in providing information.
5. The court also considered that attempting to practise as a nurse would not presently be in the respondent’s interests. The required public-protection and public-interest considerations therefore outweighed the countervailing concern arising from the length of the proceedings.