Health and Care Professions Council v Walsh

On an application to extend an interim order concerning a registered health professional, the court applies the same criteria as govern the original order. The relevant considerations include the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the practitioner. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the court on the civil standard. The court retains discretion over the length of any extension and may grant a shorter period than requested where the substantive fitness-to-practise hearing is imminent.

The Health and Care Professions Council applied under article 31(8) of the Health and Social Professions Order 2001 for a further extension of an interim order concerning a registered radiographer. The order had been imposed after the defendant admitted and was convicted of stealing controlled medical drugs from his employer. The Council sought a further 12-month extension while substantive fitness-to-practise proceedings were being heard. The defendant did not attend or participate in the application.

The central issues were whether the statutory criteria for extension were satisfied and, if so, what period of extension was appropriate.

1. The application was granted, but the requested 12-month extension was reduced to six months. The order was directed to expire on 16 April 2010, as stated in the judgment.

2. Under article 31(9) of the Health and Social Professions Order 2001, the court has a discretion to extend an interim order for up to 12 months. The applicable criteria are the same as those governing the original order. The court applied the approach in General Medical Council v Stephen Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.

3. The relevant considerations were:

   • the gravity of the allegations;
   • the nature of the evidence;
   • the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients;
   • the reasons why the substantive case had not been concluded; and
   • the prejudice to the practitioner if the interim order continued.

4. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the court on each criterion, on the civil standard.

5. Those criteria were satisfied. The allegations were serious and had resulted in a criminal conviction for theft of controlled drugs. The risk of harm to patients was high. The delay was reasonably explained by the Council’s workload and the late receipt of medical records. The substantive hearing had commenced and was expected to conclude shortly. Prejudice to the registrant was minimal, including because he had previously sought continuation of the order for his own protection.

6. Although a further extension was justified, the imminent conclusion of the substantive hearing made a 12-month period inappropriate. A six-month extension was therefore ordered.