Nursing And Midwifery Council v Moniba

When deciding whether to extend an interim order suspending a healthcare professional’s registration, the court must balance the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of harm to patients or the public against the reasons for delay and the practitioner’s prejudice. Delay caused substantially by the practitioner’s ill health may justify continuation of the order. A maximum 12-month extension may be appropriate where the substantive hearing is likely to proceed sooner, the practitioner faces little practical prejudice, and the order will end if the case is determined earlier.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further 12-month extension of an interim order suspending Moniba’s registration. The order had been in force since September 2015 and the substantive proceedings had been delayed, principally because of Moniba’s serious kidney condition and anticipated transplant. Moniba did not attend or appear, but the court was satisfied that she had been served and had chosen not to participate.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the risk to patients and public confidence, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to Moniba.

1. The application was granted. The interim order suspending the respondent’s registration was extended for 12 months under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

2. Applying the principles identified in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew, the court balanced the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the substantive case had not concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner.

3. The allegations concerned serious failures in dealing with an injured care-home resident, alleged dishonesty in an incident report, and inappropriate conduct towards colleagues. The allegations and surrounding circumstances demonstrated a significant risk of harm to the public if the respondent practised without restriction. Public confidence in the nursing profession and its regulator was also relevant.

4. The delay was substantially explained by the respondent’s poor health. Preliminary meetings had considered adjustments to enable her participation, and further steps were being taken to progress the case. The hearing could proceed when her health improved or suitable arrangements were made.

5. Although the court was concerned that 12 months was the maximum extension, that period was justified by the uncertainty surrounding the respondent’s health and the limited apparent prejudice to her. The order would fall away if the substantive case proceeded earlier. The balance of convenience therefore favoured the extension.