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 Drew [2012] EWHC 597 (Admin) (02 March 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/597.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 597 (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 | Claimant | |
| v | ||
| REBECCA JANE DREW | Defendant |
____________________
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 Defendant did not appear and was not represented
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE KEITH: This is an application by the Nursing and Midwifery Council under article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension for a period of ten months of an interim suspension order which is currently due to expire on 6 March. Although the respondent does not consent to the application, she does not oppose it.
- The allegation which the respondent faces is that she had an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable patient. The allegation is not disputed, at least that is what I have been told by the NMC. There is less prejudice to the respondent if the order is extended than in most cases, because the panel of the Investigating Committee of the NMC, when considering whether an interim suspension was required, took the view that it was not. The panel thought that any risk of harm to patients arising out of what the respondent was alleged to have done could be adequately managed by imposing conditions on her continuing to practise rather than by suspending her. So long as as she continues to work for her current employer, those conditions are not onerous.
- Having said all that, there has been quite a delay in progressing the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. It has been caused in part by problems which are systemic, but also in part by the number of cases which have to be considered. Had the application been opposed, I might have had some misgivings about extending the interim suspension order for as long as ten months, but a panel of the Investigating Committee is due to determine whether the respondent has a case to answer, and, if so, how the case should progress, on 23 March, and I think it would be appropriate to extend the order for as long as it takes for that hearing to take place, for an informed view to be taken about how the case should progress in the future, and for any substantive hearing to take place. Ten months is quite a time, but in the circumstances I do not think it is excessive. I therefore extend the interim order for ten months, that is until 5 January 2013.
- You are not asking for any order as to costs?
- MR HAFEJEE: My Lord, it is never our practice to ask for costs in these particular circumstances.
- MR JUSTICE KEITH: I make no order for the costs of the application. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hafejee.