Nursing and Midwifery Council v Okon- Burgess

1. MR JUSTICE WILKIE: This is an application under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension of an Interim Suspension Order made by a panel of the Council's Practice Committee on 9 July 2008. The subject of the order and the subject of the complaint in respect of which the suspension order is a part of the machinery, Mr Okon-Burgess, has not appeared in court today. I have considered the witness statement in support of the application of Clare Stringfellow, who is the case manager in the Fitness to Practise Directorate of the applicant.

2. The matter arose early in 2008 by a letter of referral to the applicant dated 29 January 2008 raising matters of complaint in respect of the conduct of Mr Okon-Burgess in respect of a particular patient of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust. Those allegations were considered, and on 9 July 2008 the Council's Investigating Committee by a panel decided to make an interim suspension order of 18 months duration. The power to do so is given by Article 31(2) and 18 months is the maximum period of an interim suspension order that that body can make. Having made it, it is under obligations to review the order within six months, and thereafter at three-monthly intervals. Those internal reviews took place and on each occasion the suspension order was affirmed. Beyond that, an interim suspension order can only be extended by order of the High Court. On 10 January of this year this court made an extension order for a period of six months, due to expire on 7 July 2010. That is almost two years after the original suspension order was imposed.

3. The order I am asked to make is one which will extend that period further for a period of nine months. The procedural history of the matter has not been without its difficulties, and Miss Stringfellow has set out in her witness statement the various steps that were taken, culminating in March of this year with what was intended on 8 March to be a substantive hearing, but because of evidential problems it was decided to adjourn the hearing in order to obtain witness statements from various eye witnesses to the alleged incident and to ascertain their willingness and/or availability to give evidence at a substantive hearing.

4. Those steps have to an extent been pursued, culminating with interviews of three available witnesses, including patients, on 2 June, the draft statement being sent to them on 4 June and their return being currently awaited. Until that happens it seems that it will not be possible to fix a date for the resumed hearing of the substantive hearing, nor to be able to give a precise indication as to when the case is likely to be concluded.

5. I am prepared to extend the suspension order for a period of a further nine months from 7 July 2010. It does seem to me, however, that by the end of that period these proceedings should have been completed -- at least the substantive hearing should have been completed -- and I would anticipate that if there was a further application for an extension because the hearing had not taken place, the court would need some persuading before extending the suspension, which will already have run for almost three years, yet further. But obviously that is not a matter for me today and I grant the application sought.

6. MRS FORBES: My Lord, I have a draft order if it assists.

7. MR JUSTICE WILKIE: Thank you.