Nursing And Midwifery Council v Thompson

When deciding whether to extend an interim regulatory order, the court must balance the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of harm to patients or the public, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the practitioner. The court may proceed in the respondent’s absence where the respondent has been properly notified, has had an opportunity to attend, and has chosen not to do so. Delay remains a relevant concern, even where the balance favours continuation of the order.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a four-month extension of an interim order restricting the respondent’s right to practise. The order had originally been made on 15 September and was due to expire on 13 March 2017.

The allegations concerned inaccurate or fraudulent notifications of practice and continuing professional development, despite the respondent not having worked as a nurse since 1998. The respondent had notice of the application and supplied written representations, but did not attend. The court considered whether the order should be extended despite delay in progressing the underlying case.

1. Proceeding in the respondent’s absence. The court was entitled to proceed because the respondent had been served with the evidence and notice of the application, had an opportunity to attend, and had chosen not to do so. Her written representations were taken into account.
2. Balancing exercise. In deciding whether to continue the interim order, the court balanced the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. Continued failure to maintain clinical practice and continuing professional development could create a real potential risk to patients, even where the risk was not obvious or acute.
3. Application of the balance. The delay was unsatisfactory and initially unexplained, but the evidence explained the subsequent investigative and procedural steps and indicated that a hearing was likely within the requested extension. The respondent had identified no specific prejudice and had not been practising. The balance of convenience therefore favoured continuation of the order.
4. The four-month extension was granted under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The court warned that the delay was a matter of concern and should be drawn to the attention of any judge if a further application became necessary.