Nursing & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Meal [2010] EWHC 3693 (Admin)

Case No CO/12258/2010[2010] EWHC 3693 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday, 9 December 2010
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL
Between
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NURSING & MIDWIFERY COUNCILClaimantv
Between
MEALDefendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss McDonald appeared for Claimant for The defendant was not represented, did not attend
J U D G M E N T
[1]MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL: This is a further application by the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) to extend an interim suspension order made by a Panel of the Investigating Committee on 9 July 2009. That order was made pursuant to Article 31 (2) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001. This application is made pursuant to Article 31 (8) of the same order.[2]Article 31 (2) provides that if the Practice Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) - "(2) ..... is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned, for the registration of that person to be suspended or to be made subject to conditions, it may —(a) make an order directing the Registrar to suspend the person's registration (an 'interim suspension order'), or(b) make an order imposing conditions with which the person must comply (an 'interim conditions of practice order'). ..... "[3]Article 31 (6) provides:
"(6) The Committee which made the order or, if the matter has been referred to another Practice Committee, that Committee, shall, in a case coming within paragraph (1) (a), review an order made under paragraph (2) — (a) within the period of six months beginning on the date on which the order was made, and shall thereafter, for so long as the order continues in force, further review it before the end of the period of three months beginning on the date of the decision of the immediately preceding review; ..... "
There is also provision for review (see Section 31 (6) (b)).[4]In relation to an interim suspension order or an interim conditions of practice order, the Practice Committee which made the order may - "(a) revoke the order or revoke any condition imposed by the order; (b) confirm the order; (c) vary any condition imposed by the order; (d) if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned, replace an interim conditions of practice order with an interim suspension order having effect for the remainder of the term of the former; (e) if satisfied that the public interest, including the protection of members of the public, or the interests of the person concerned would be adequately served by an interim conditions of practice order, replace an interim suspension order with an interim conditions of practice order having effect for the remainder of the term of the former." Paragraph (8) is the application to this court to which I have already referred. By paragraph (9):
"On ..... an application [to the court] the court may extend (or further extend) for up to 12 months the period for which the order has."
[5]The respondent has not attended today. I have seen the affidavit of service. She is aware of the hearing. I understand from Miss McDonald that she has not taken any part in any of the processes of the NMC to date, and it may be that that continues to be the position. I have seen a letter from her dated 1 August 2010, in which she says:
"I do not intend practising as a nurse in the future. I should be grateful for an explanation of why this investigation is continuing at considerable expense and trouble. Yours sincerely, Andrea Meal."
[6]The respondent faces a number of allegations of mistreatment of elderly and vulnerable patients, while she was employed as a staff nurse at Woking Community Hospital. The matters are alleged to have taken place over a prolonged period between 2001 and 2008 but the matter was not drawn to the attention of the NMC until February 2009 by which stage the respondent had been dismissed by her employers on the basis of gross misconduct.[7]It follows therefore that although the allegations of misconduct are extremely stale, the reason for the delay in bringing the matter to a conclusion before the NMC, at least up to 2009, is nothing to do with the NMC. As is often the case with investigations carried out by external solicitors on behalf of the NMC, there was some delay in the production of their report. It is said that that is, in part, because of the number of witnesses as is observed. They would have had a head start in knowing the identities of the relevant witnesses who participated in the disciplinary hearing in February 2009.[8]The charges are set out in the document appended to the witness statement. I have no doubt, given the serious nature of the allegations, that it is necessary for the protection of the public and indeed in the public interest for an extension of a supension order to be made in this case. The issue is what should the length of that extension be. Twelve months is requested. Miss McDonald has been extremely helpful, as she has been in earlier cases in setting out the need for more time than I would otherwise have thought appropriate for some stages to be gone through.[9]I am satisfied, having reflected on the necessary stages that have to be gone through, that the proportionate period for the extension order in this case is one of nine months.