Nursing and Midwifery Council v Tomy

An interim order restricting a nurse’s registration may be extended where the statutory conditions remain satisfied and further time is reasonably required before the substantive fitness-to-practise hearing. The court must balance the need to conclude the matter as soon as reasonably practicable against public protection and the public interest. A further extension may be justified where hearing delays, including those arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and operational constraints, make it necessary to cover the listed hearing date.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council applied under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a further six-month extension of an interim conditions-of-practice order imposed under article 31(2). The order had originally been made after concerns about failures to administer and record medication and wider concerns about nursing competence and patient care. The substantive fitness-to-practise hearing had been postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic and was listed for May 2021. The respondent had been served but did not participate. The issue was whether a further extension was necessary and proportionate pending conclusion of the substantive hearing.

1. The application under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 was granted. The interim order was extended for six months from 26 April 2021.
2. The original order had been imposed because the investigating panel considered that restrictions were necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest. The concerns included a real risk of serious harm to patients and a risk of repetition if the respondent worked without restrictions.
3. The conditions of practice increased supervision and limited the respondent to one employer. The court was satisfied that the order had been properly reviewed, most recently on 30 December 2020.
4. Although the matter had to be concluded as soon as reasonably practicable, the listed substantive hearing had been delayed and difficulties could continue because of the backlog of hearings, social-distancing requirements and other COVID-secure measures. A further six-month period provided sufficient time for the hearing to conclude and was necessary to include the hearing date.
5. The respondent had been properly served and had not responded or appeared. The extension was therefore ordered in the terms sought.

Not applicable. This was a first-instance application; the judgment records earlier reviews and extensions of the interim order but no appellate decision.