[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Nursing and Midwifery Council v Carthy [2010] EWHC 1194 (Admin) (18 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1194.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 1194 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		18 March 2010

1. MR JUSTICE KING: With a certain degree of reluctance I will grant an extension for 6 months.
2. This is a matter in which the interim suspension order was made on 23 September 2008 and is due to expire on 22 March 2010. It relates to events in July 2007 when the respondent allegedly, in his capacity as a registered nurse dealing with patients with mental disabilities, dragged a patient, on at least two occasions, across a floor, in circumstances which, if true, would arguably be a serious abuse of that patient. Any court, however, must be concerned with the delay in this case in the investigation of these primary allegations.
3. The final report to the investigating committee, from the investigating external solicitors, is dated 8 March 2010. There clearly has been delay arising out of the knowledge that criminal proceedings were pending against the registrant. However, it was established in January 2009 that the criminal proceedings came before the Stafford Crown Court and were concluded on 26 January 2009. Paragraph 18 of the final report, to which I have referred, states that on that occasion Carthy, the respondent on this application, was found not guilty after the indictment was stayed by the judge. The judges reasons for staying the indictment included the lack of training records provided by the trust, the delay in reporting the incidents, the lack of detail regarding time and date, and the fact that no other witnesses had provided evidence in relation to the allegations. What has happened between 26 January 2009 and the date of the final report is not entirely clear. Certainly, there seems to have been delay arising out of the fact that one of the witnesses to one of the incidents has been in hospital. However, the other witness, Miss Bell, does not seem to have been unavailable.
4. On the other hand, it is clear to me that now there is a final report and now there are sufficiently clear witness statements from the witnesses to each of the two occasions in July 2007, this case can now be subject to the appropriate process to be undertaken by the council before finally determining whether or not to bring charges. I am also mindful that I am told, and I have no reason to doubt, that the registrant seems to have disappeared. Certainly he did not attend on the review hearing in January of this year, January 2010, and letters were returned stating "addressee gone away" when letters were sent to his last known address. I am also told that he did write on some occasion to indicate that he had resigned his post at the hospital concerned and did not intend to seek further employment as a nurse. I know not whether that be true or not, although that is some insight into whether or not there is any prejudice to him by the continuation of this order.
5. The prejudice to him, or the lack of it, cannot however be determinative of whether this order should be granted. The court has to be satisfied that there is an investigation which is being properly pursued by the applicant and that it is in relation to allegations which, if true, give rise to serious concerns for the protection of the public. I am finally persuaded that the council are now pursuing this case with proper determination, and I am satisfied that, given the nature of the allegations, that is it is necessary for the protection of the public that the order continue. Clearly, if the allegations be true, this was arguably a serious abuse of a vulnerable patient by a nurse. I stress, however, if they be true.
6. I grant the extension only for 6 months in the light of the delay in this case. If after 6 months there is still a need for further extension of the interim order, well the council will have to come back to court, justify what has been happening in the meantime, and justify any further extension.
7. MRS MCDONALD: My Lord, yes. I have drafted on order, I have not written any date in so I have done that by hand.
8. MR JUSTICE KING: Yes. I will, in the circumstances, make this order. The interim order will be extended to 4pm on 22 September 2010. The respondent has permission, on giving 3 days written notice to the applicant, to apply to the court to vary or discharge this order. There will be no order for costs.
9. I should say, it is obvious in my words already spoken, that there has been no appearance today by the respondent.
10. Very good.
11. MRS MCDONALD: My Lord, I am grateful.