England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		7 February 2008

1. MR JUSTICE FORBES: In these proceedings the applicant seeks an extension of six months to the Interim Suspension Order imposed on the respondent's registration by an Investigating Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council ("the Council") on 11 April 2006. The original Order was previously extended for a period of four months on 10 October 2007.
2. This application is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The Council served the application and supporting witness statement and exhibits on the respondent by means of first class post on 1 February 2008. The applicant, and indeed the court, has received no response as a result. The original Interim Order was made by the Investigating Committee on 11 April 2006 and imposed under Article 31(2) of the Order for a period of 18 months. It is due to expire on 10 February 2008.
3. The central allegation put before the Investigating Committee was that the respondent, who is a nurse and was employed by the Blackpool Hospitals Trust, had failed to carry out adequately a formal development programme, had failed to demonstrate an adequate level of effective communication and had failed to demonstrate an adequate level of understanding and knowledge in her role as a D-grade staff nurse. It was emphasised that the crucial aspect of the allegation was the respondent's lack of understanding and knowledge of her role.
4. A further issue highlighted in the proceedings was a suspicion that the respondent was regularly consuming large amounts of alcohol and that subsequent blood monitoring corroborated that suspicion. Concerns about the respondent's poor clinical practice led to a final warning being issued on 8 September 2004. Following that warning a six-month development plan was put in place. Unfortunately, this did not lead to any substantial improvement and the respondent was eventually dismissed on 27 May 2005. Her mentor reported to the final disciplinary meeting that the respondent would be a danger to patient lives even if she was allowed to work as Health Care Assistant. At the disciplinary meeting on 3 November 2004 the Mentor assessed the respondent's knowledge as being "dangerously poor". On 19 May 2005, there was a "near miss" incident that was a consequence of her lack of knowledge and understanding.
5. The Order was made by the Panel for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest and referred to the:

"seriousness of the allegations in respect of a series of incidences of failure to demonstrate competence, with potentially harmful consequences."

6. In the case of General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the Court of Appeal gave guidance that may be summarised as follows.

1. The criteria to be applied by the court when considering an application to extend an Interim Order are the same as for the making of an Interim Order, namely the protection of the public, the public interest and the registrant's own interests.

2. Using these criteria, the Court can take into account matters such as the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case has not concluded and the prejudice to the registrant if the case is not concluded.

3. It is not the function of the Court to make findings of primary fact about the events that have led to the suspension or consider the merits of the case for suspension. The Court is required to ascertain whether the allegations (rather than their truth or falsity) justify the prolongation of the Interim Order. In general, the court need not look beyond the allegations.

7. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Hafejee submitted that the Interim Order should be extended in this case because it remains necessary for the protection of the public. Having considered the key allegations in this matter, I am satisfied that his submission is correct. It is worthy of note that since the Order was first made in April 2006 a case to answer has been found and a hearing into the substantive issues is to be scheduled. I am told, and I accept, that the likely date of such a hearing will be April or May of this year.
8. I am satisfied that the allegations raise serious issues of public protection and I accept that the applicant has sought to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the Interim Order for a further period of six months and accordingly I so order.
9. MR HAFEJEE: Just to raise one issue, my skeleton is incorrect at paragraph 4. It should say "11 April 2006".
10. MR JUSTICE FORBES: You are quite right. Thank you very much.