Nursing and Midwifery Council v Armstrong

Professional disciplinary proceedings should be progressed promptly where a restriction on practice or suspension has remained in force for an extended period. Although unavoidable criminal-process delays and difficulties obtaining medical evidence may justify further time, the court will expect applications for additional extensions to be supported by genuinely compelling reasons.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under Rule 33 for a further four months in proceedings concerning a restriction on the respondent’s practice. The restriction had been in place since approximately April 2017. Criminal proceedings had been discontinued, but obtaining sufficient medical evidence for the Rule 33 application had caused difficulty. The respondent did not appear or have representation. The court considered the Rule 33 application before any merits hearing.

1. The court granted the further order sought under Rule 33, having regard to the unavoidable delays associated with the criminal process and the difficulties in obtaining sufficient medical evidence.
2. The court emphasised that professional disciplinary proceedings should not remain open for extended periods while restrictions on practice or suspensions continue. The fact that the order was a restriction on practice rather than a suspension did not remove the need for procedural focus.
3. The court directed attention to cases in which restrictions or suspensions had been in place for a considerable time. It indicated that any further application for additional time would require genuinely compelling reasons.
4. If the Rule 33 application had not succeeded, the proceedings would have proceeded to a merits hearing.