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
		12 December 2014

1. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: In this case, the Nursing and Midwifery Council seeks an extension of the interim Conditions of Practice Order made on 14 June 2013 under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a period of 8 months from 13 December 2014. The decision was last reviewed by the Council on 5 December of this year.
2. The Panel then decided to adjourn the hearing and so this application has been prepared at short notice. No response has been received from the respondent to this application, but the respondent's representative had notice of the application and has not attended today. The respondent first came to the attention of the Council following a referral from the NHS England Midlands and the Eastern Local Supervising Authority Midwifery Officer.
3. The respondent faced allegations relating to three incidents which occurred when she was a registered midwife at the Watford General Hospital. These involved three patients and included allegations of a failure to gain consent before performing a vaginal examination, the provision of substandard care during labour, and a drug administration error. The respondent was placed on two supervised practice programmes, but she failed or did not complete those programmes.
4. The provision under which this application is made, article 31(2) entitles an interim order to be made where the Court is satisfied that such an order is necessary for the protection of members of the public or otherwise in the public interest or the interest of the person concerned. The case of General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, which deals with the similar provision under the regulatory regime of the General Medical Council, contains in which various factors which are on value in deciding whether to grant an extension. They include the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk to patients, the reason why the case has not been concluded, and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued. The onus of satisfying the court is on the regulatory body.
5. The position at present is that although the allegations were initially grave, the Council now accepts that there has been a significant change, and it will be suggesting to the investigating council that there might be no case for the respondent to answer. The Council concedes the risk of prejudice to the applicant, should the order continue, is potentially high.
6. While the matter remains outstanding in respect of these allegations, it is appropriate to grant a very short extension of one month on the basis that the respondent is entitled to apply to vary or discharge the order upon giving notice. This will enable the respondent to come back to court if need be and also for the applicant to reach a clear decision. I reach this conclusion with a certain amount of reluctance but in the light of the original allegations that were made and the uncertainty at present, it seems appropriate to deal with this matter in this way.
7. So I will grant an extension now until Monday, 12 January. I do it with substantial reluctance in the light of the fact that there might well be no case to answer, but I am seeking to preserve the position in the meantime of giving her the right when she sees the documents to decide whether she is going to apply for a discharge.
8. The respondent has permission on giving written notice to apply to vary or discharge the order.