[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 & Midwifery Council, R (on the application of) v Williams [2010] EWHC 1422 (Admin) (11 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1422.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 1422 (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
		11 May 2010

1. MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART: The applicant in this case is the Nursing & Midwifery Council seeking an extension of time for an interim suspension order made on 20 November 2008 under Article 31 (8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 for a period of 18 months which expires on 19 May 2010. The application is that that interim order should be extended for a further six months which is half the statutory maximum. The application was duly served on the respondent by recorded delivery and first-class post on 14 April.
2. The applicant's investigating committee made the order on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent which relate to events which occurred on 14 May 2007 when he was alleged to have administered insulin to a patient at 5.30 am which he did not report appropriately and which resulted in a hypoglycaemic event. The respondent is then alleged to have amended the chart, so as to change the time when the drug was administered, to 7.05 am. An initial investigation meeting was held with the respondent by the Medway NHS Trust on 23 May 2007, following which the allegations were found to have been established.
3. The Trust held a disciplinary hearing on 28 June 2007 which was attended by the respondent alone, he having chosen to attend without representation. At that hearing the respondent admitted severe poor practice on his part. The panel found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct. He was summarily dismissed. On 3 August 2007 the case was referred to the applicant. On 10 September 2008 - I am not clear why this took so long - a panel of the applicant's investigating committee considered the case and decided that the allegation should be investigated further.
4. The committee considered the case again at an interim order hearing on 20 November 2008. It decided that it was necessary to impose an interim suspension order in the light of the serious nature of the allegations relating to the incorrect and inappropriate administration of insulin to a patient and the panel's conclusion that an order was necessary to protect the public and was also in the public interest to ensure confidence in the profession. The order made was for 18 months. There was an interim order review hearing on 11 June at which it was decided that it was necessary to continue with the order. A further review hearing was held on 9 September 2009 at which the panel reached the same conclusion.
5. The case was considered again by a panel of the investigating committee on 4 November 2009 at which it was resolved that there was a case to answer and that it should be referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee. A substantive hearing of the allegations has now been fixed for 24 and 25 May 2010. The applicant is therefore seeking to have the interim order extended for a period of six months in order to cover the remaining period of these proceedings against the respondent. One may ask why such a long period is necessary but the application is made on this basis in case the hearing does not go ahead as planned.
6. This is the second case to come before me this morning where the requirements of Article 31 (6) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order have not been met. This Article provides that the committee must review an interim order within six months from the date on which it was made and thereafter review it at three-monthly intervals for the remainder of its duration. It seems that in this case the order was not reviewed until 11 June 2009, more than six months after it was made. However it was then reviewed again on 9 September and reviewed at regular intervals thereafter until 22 December 2009.
7. Upon the basis of the material before me, I accept that the gravity of these allegations would suggest that the respondent is a person who presents a risk of serious harm to patients and is prepared to conceal what he does in order to cover his tracks. I am therefore satisfied that the criteria for extending this interim order are met. However as I have said I am concerned at the delay that has taken place in this investigation and the fact that the order has not been reviewed at required intervals. I am prepared to extend this order but - in the light of the fact that a substantive hearing is to be held later this month and the delays to date - I am going to do so only for a short period, three months and not the six months requested. Mrs Forbes who appears for the applicant, very sensibly, did not press strongly for a longer period.
8. The order I make is three months.