Nursing and Midwifery Council v Soondressen Cooppen

On an application to extend an interim suspension order in professional disciplinary proceedings, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that continuation is justified for public protection or is otherwise in the public interest. The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant matters include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk to patients or other vulnerable persons, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the practitioner. Public confidence in the profession may justify continuation while serious allegations remain unresolved, provided the regulator has not unreasonably delayed the proceedings.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend an interim suspension order imposed against the respondent, a registered nurse. The order had originally been made under article 31(2) and had been reviewed on six occasions. The Council sought a further nine-month extension so that fitness-to-practise proceedings could be completed.

The allegations concerned multiple concerns about care provided in three care homes. The respondent had recently re-engaged with the disciplinary proceedings but did not respond to the application or attend the hearing. The central issue was whether the statutory criteria for extending the suspension order were established.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for nine months, to 7 January 2018.
2. The proper approach was that identified in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, paragraph [28], and was equally applicable to this disciplinary regime. The court had to consider the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons why the proceedings had not concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner.
3. The court had to consider all the evidence and be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that continuation was justified for the protection of the public or was otherwise in the public interest.
4. The allegations were serious and concerned several referrals relating to conditions in three care homes. The Council’s explanation for delay, including delay connected with a police investigation and further investigative work, was accepted. The Council had not unreasonably delayed progressing the case.
5. Although continuation caused prejudice to the respondent, there was a public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession pending the final determination of serious allegations affecting the well-being and safety of vulnerable individuals. The respondent’s non-participation in the application was also noted.
6. Having regard to all those matters, an extension was necessary for public protection and was otherwise in the public interest. A nine-month period was appropriate to allow the proceedings to be concluded.

The judgment does not state an appellate history. It records that the interim suspension order had previously been extended by order of the High Court on 6 July 2016.