Nursing & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Warwick

1. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is an application made pursuant to article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 to extend the interim suspension order made by an investigating committee of the NMC on 20 February 2007. The respondent is a registered nurse and midwife. The allegations relate to both unsafe clinical practice and inappropriate professional conduct towards the patients in her care.

2. On 12 March 2008 these allegations were deemed sufficently serious by a panel of the investigating committee to support an interim order suspending her from the nursing register on the basis that such an order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. Thereafter the order has been reviewed on 18 September 2008, 17 December 2008 and most recently on 18 June 2009. In broad terms the respondent denies the allegations.

3. The investigation has involved interviewing a number of witnesses, eight in all. The statements will then have to be considered by the in-house legal team, reviewed by that team and referred on for consideration by a panel of an investigating committee to determine whether there is a case to answer. It would then be referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee to determine how the case should be disposed of, by meeting or hearing. It is only at this stage the case can be scheduled for hearing, and given the fact there is likely to be eight witnesses I have been told it is difficult to identify an early date. Realistically it is said, therefore, that a 12 month extension would be required to enable the case to be disposed of finally.

4. I have read the witness statement of Claire Stringfellow dated 21 July 2009 in support of this application and I take the view that in all the circumstances it is necessary and proportionate for the interim suspension order to be extended for 12 months. In particular I take into account a number of relevant factors in this case. They are: first, the original decision made by a specialist committee of the Regulatory Body that the allegations were serious enough to warrant suspension from the register; second, there is no evidence that the respondent opposes the continuation of this order or that she wishes to resume her nursing career, although I have been referred to two letters from the respondent dated 2 April 2009 and an earlier letter dated 15 September 2008 which do indicate that she did wish to challenge the interim order, but I am told that there was not any follow up to those letters.

5. Finally, the order will remain the subject of review every 3 months by the investigating committee and the respondent has a further right under Article 31(12) to apply to this court for the order to be amended or revoked. Mrs MacDonald, who appears on behalf of the applicant, has placed before me a draft order, and that order includes two paragraphs; first that the interim order suspending the respondent from the register of nurses maintained by the applicant is extended to 4pm on 12 September 2010, and for the reasons I have stated in my judgment, an order should be made in those terms. Secondly, there is included in paragraph two that the respondent has permission to apply to the court on giving three days' written notice to the applicant to vary or discharge the order. That paragraph should also be included and the respondent who is not here today, or represented, will then appreciate she has permission to apply to the court on giving a period of notice there stated. On that basis, I make the order that is sought.