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
		26 November 2014

1. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: The Nursing and Midwifery Council ("the Council") seeks an extension of the interim order made on 30 May 2013 against Fiona Midgley, the respondent pursuant to article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 ("the Order") for a period of 3 months from 29 November 2014.
2. The respondent came to the attention of the Council on 9 May 2013 following a referral from the local supervisory authority midwifery officer. As a consequence she faces allegations that she self administered Envinox and Chlorpheniramine while on duty and that she administered Co-codamol(?) to a patient with only a verbal prescription. She also kept no record of this as well as failing to escalate or make further observation in relation to the patient's blood pressure and to identify miconium which otherwise put a patient and unborn child at risk.
3. In consequence, the order was made. It has been reviewed on four previous occasions, and the substantive case is now awaiting rescheduling, and the dates that have been proposed are for 12-15 January, 2015. The basis upon which this application is made is that under article 31(8) of the Order, the court can extend or further extend for up to 12 months the period of an order.
4. The principles to be applied in deciding whether to extend the order as the same as those that were specified by the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council in General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 in which guidance was given on the principles to be applied on applications of that kind. Those principles show that the relevant factors for granting an extension include the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of risk and harm to the patients, the reason why the case has not been concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued. It is accepted that the onus of satisfying the court is on the Council.
5. In this case, the allegations faced by the respondent are serious as there was a risk to patients from a midwife who was working under the influence of this form of medication. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to conclude the case at the present time, but the Council recognises the existence of an interim order can cause prejudice to a nurse by preventing her from practising while she awaits a substantive hearing of her case.
6. In this case I accept the submission that the prejudice caused to Miss Midgley is outweighed by the need to protect the public and uphold public confidence.
7. The respondent was served with a pre-action document and, in response by email of 7 October of this year, the respondent stated: "I am happy to give my consent for the continuation of the interim order." She has not appeared today and has not participated in any way in the proceedings. I therefore, in all those circumstances, am satisfied to extend this order for 3 months from its expiry on 29 November, which means that it will expire on 28 February 2015.