British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Nursing and Midwifery Council v Brooks [2012] EWHC 324 (Admin) (09 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/324.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 324 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL | Applicant | |
| v | ||
| DOREEN ENNA BROOKS | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: The applicant seeks a nine month extension of the interim conditions of practice order made on 11th November 2009 under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. Notice of this hearing was given to the registrant on 16th January 2012.
- The registrant faces allegations that whilst working as a Band 5 Staff Nurse for Lambeth Primary Care Trust she failed to administer a dose to one patient and failed to record such fact and erroneously signed that she had given the patient a particular dose, making an erroneous entry in respect of another patient on her prescription and erroneously administering a prescription to a third patient.
- The chronology is as follows. The complaint was received in January 2009 and considered by the Investigating Committee on 12th August. It was referred to the Council's solicitors for further investigation. This was completed at the end of September 2010, the solicitors being given an extension of time within which to complete it. On 11th November 2009 the Investigating Committee made an interim suspension order for 18 months. The registrant was present, acting in person. During the hearing she admitted she had made mistakes and showed poor judgment on occasions. She had been dismissed in July 2008 and had not worked since nor undertaken any courses. At that stage, given her lack of employment and lack of training, an interim suspension order was imposed. On 12th August 2010 that order was continued for the same reasons, which were to protect the public and in the public interest. The same course of action was taken again on 1st November, no representations or any update of her situation in the meantime having been made by the registrant.
- On 22nd December the Investigating Committee decided there was a case to answer and the matter was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee ("the CCC"). That Committee continued its interim suspension order on 7th February 2011, taking the view that without the wholehearted co-operation of the registrant it was impossible to impose interim conditions of practice. On 5th May 2011 that same Committee replaced the interim suspension order with an interim conditions of practice order. The registrant was not present. The reasons for the change were that the formal allegations were narrower than those that were made when the interim suspension order was first imposed and that the Council had received a detailed statement from the registrant in relation to the matters in question. The High Court extended the order on 6th May 2011 by nine months. On 3rd August the CCC continued the order with slightly varied conditions. There was a review in October 2011. The most recent review was on 31st January 2012.
- There has been a hearing in relation to this case. It took place on 10th and 11th November of last year. The registrant did not attend, nor was represented. There was amendment to the charges allowed, and because the registrant was taken not to have formally admitted the amended charges the case was considered in full; the result of which is that the hearing went part-heard. The date for the renewed hearing was to be 22nd December last year, but due to one of the panelists having a family bereavement the case could not go ahead. Counsel today has now told me that the matter is fixed for 31st May of this year.
- This court has to consider the same criteria as the panel when faced with an application of this nature, namely the protection of the public, other public interest and, in relevant cases, the protection of the registrant.
- Having read all the papers, I am satisfied that the order that stands with the conditions in place is appropriate and proportionate and is necessary for the protection of the public. This is even more so given that the registrant has now made an admission to much of the behaviour alleged. There are no representations before me by the registrant as to any hardship it would cause. Her most recent communication is a letter dated 10th October 2011, no doubt in readiness for the hearing, in which she sets out some mitigating circumstances and apologises for any inconvenience she may have caused. In the light of the timing of the resumed hearing and in order to give some leeway in case the hearing is not able to resume or for some reason is put over, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the order for a further nine months.
- MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Do you have a draft?
- MISS NEJRANOWSKI: My Lady, I do. If I can hand it up.
- MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Do you have a date?
- MISS NEJRANOWSKI: It expires tomorrow. That would take us to 10th November.
- MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Thank you very much.