England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Nursing & Midwifery Council v Collins [2017] EWHC 591 (Admin) (16 February 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/591.html
Cite as: [2017] EWHC 591 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 591 (Admin)
		Case No CO/692/2017

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

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

16 February 2017

B e f o r e :

NICHOLAS PAINES QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________

Between:

	NURSING & MIDWIFERY COUNCIL	Applicant
	v
	COLLINS	Respondent

____________________

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Mr Francis O'Toole (instructed by Nursing & Midwifery Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent was not represented, did not attend
____________________

Decision (Approved)
____________________

DEPUTY JUDGE: This is an application to extend an interim suspension order under Article 31 of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001.

The respondent is a registered nurse. A conditions of practice order was imposed upon him in June 2014 which, in September 2015, was converted into an interim suspension order. It has been twice extended by this court: in December 2015 for six months and in June 2016 for eight months, that extension expiring on 20 February 2017. The application before me is for a further extension for five months, expiring on 20 July 2017.

I have looked carefully at the matter in view of the total time that has elapsed since conditions of practice and then suspension were first imposed, but I am satisfied for the reasons I shall explain that it is appropriate to extend the order further in the particular circumstances of this case. Under Article 31 (8) it is for me to consider whether the order should be further extended. I have applied the criteria in Article 31, namely protection of the public, the public interest and the interests of the registrant, and I note that the relevant factors include the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients that they may disclose, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and possible prejudice to the registrant.

The history is that in May 2014 the registrant notified the Nursing & Midwifery Council that he was being prosecuted for driving with excess alcohol and attempted criminal damage. This arose out of an argument in a public house, after which the respondent left and then drove back with excess alcohol in his body and threw a hammer through the public house window. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced on the driving charge and conditionally discharged on the damage charge. He also reported to the Nursing & Midwifery Council that he had been cautioned in May 2013 (the year previously) for criminal damage.

At the hearing before the Interim Orders Panel on 23 June 2014 the registrant told the Panel that he did not believe himself to be fit to practise owing to mental health and alcohol issues. Investigations have been going on since then. I am conscious of course that it is a period that is approaching three years now. The respondent initially co-operated but his co-operation ceased in the middle of 2015. The broad details are that in October 2014 he was requested to consent to a medical examination. Consent was received from him in February 2015. In May 2015 the Council instructed UK Independent Medical to produce a medical report. An appointment was set for a medical examination of the claimant in May and was twice postponed. In July, the registrant told the Nursing & Midwifery Council that he would not engage further with the process. He said in an e-mail, "I am walking away from nursing." He added that he had been dismissed from his employment and had lost an Employment Tribunal claim for unfair dismissal. He has not, as a result, been medically examined and that failure is itself the subject of a charge before the Conduct and Competence Committee.

In late 2015 the respondent applied for voluntary removal but this was, perhaps surprisingly, refused by the Nursing & Midwifery Council on the grounds that there was no evidence that he had left the profession. Be that as it may, he remains on the Register.

In February 2016 the respondent told the Nursing & Midwifery Council that he would not attend a Conduct and Competence Committee hearing. It was at that point that the case was referred to the Health Committee on the grounds that there were health issues rather than conduct issues, but the respondent did not complete the medical consent form. So, in November 2016 the Health Committee referred the case back to the Conduct and Competence Committee. Another thing that happened last November is that the police notified the Council that they had been called to the respondent's home because of safety concerns arising out of mental health issues and alcohol consumption. The Nursing & Midwifery Council did open a second case arising out of that, but now propose to close it as the issues are the same as in the first case. The matter is currently pending before Case Examiners.

I am satisfied that the respondent has been served with notice of today's application. I see from the papers that subsequently to the posting of that notice a Nursing & Midwifery Council lawyer telephoned the claimant, who indicated that he did not wish to have a conversation with the caller.

I have gone into this in some detail because, in view of the length of time, I wanted to satisfy myself that the necessary requirements for a suspension order were fulfilled despite the passage of time. I am satisfied that the respondent is still in a condition that would make him a source of substantial danger to patients if he were to practise.

The progress of the case has been slow and possibly a bit Byzantine but this is in part due to the respondent's recent non-co-operation and early delays by the police in providing information. I am satisfied that the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients justifies extension despite any prejudice to the respondent, though in that context the information indicates to me that it would not be in his interests to try and practise as a nurse at present either. All in all I am prepared to extend the order for the five-month period which is sought.