[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, R (on the application of) v Salauroo [2010] EWHC 367 (Admin) (27 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/367.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 367 (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
		27 January 2010

1. MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER: This is an application under Article 31 (8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension to the interim suspension order made by a panel of the Council's Practice Committee on 30 July 2008 for 18 months. The order was reviewed on 17 March 2009, 11 June 2009, 30 September 2009, 10 December 2009 and it was continued on each occasion. The application is for an extension of the interim suspension order for a period of 12 months from 29 January 2010 which is the date of expiry on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public and otherwise in the public interest.
2. There is before me a statement of Claire Stringfellow of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). She is employed by the applicant in this application as case manager in the Fitness to Practice Directorate of the NMC.
3. In her statement she set out the background to the application. In October 2007 the respondent was referred to the NMC by the Director of Regulation within Barchester Health Care, Gill Jeffers. Miss Jeffers informed the NMC that the respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment with Barchester Health Care where he had held the role of nurse. Miss Jeffers reported that the respondent had placed vulnerable adults in his care at risk of harm. The events which had led to the referral included the respondent being made the subject of a police caution under Section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2007 for omitting to give medication to residents in his care.
4. On 14 May 2008 the matter was considered by a panel of the IC. The panel members decided that the matter should be referred to the council lawyers for investigation. On 30 July 2008 the panel of the IC considered the respondent's case at an interim order hearing. The panel decided that it was necessary to impose an interim order for 18 months, suspending the respondent's registration. The order was made on the grounds that it was necessary for the protection of the public and that it was otherwise in the public interest.
5. There is before me a transcript of the hearing on that occasion which I have considered very carefully, including the representations of Miss Campbell (which appear between pages 2 and 5 of that transcript) that set out in considerable detail the allegations made against the respondent to this application.
6. The panel gave its decision in the following terms:

"The reasons for the decision are that it is necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest and is based on the fact that the severity of the allegations, including maladministration of prescribed medication and falsification of record keeping to vulnerable patients putting them at risk.

7. I can omit the chronology up to December 2009.
8. The NMC investigation was concluded on 4 December 2009.
9. In addition to the police caution received by the respondent, the NMC investigation also confirmed that the respondent had committed further acts of potential misconduct. In April 2007 the respondent was the subject of an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure request made by his employers. The CRB disclosure which was subsequently provided to Barchester Health Care showed that the respondent had been convicted of an indecent assault in 1998. It was noted that the respondent had not declared this on his application form for employment and that he had in fact stated on his application form that he had never been arrested or convicted for any crime.
10. On 10 December 2009 the panel of the IC considered the respondent's case at an interim order review hearing. The panel again decided that it remained necessary to continue the interim order for the protection of the public and that it was otherwise in the public interest to maintain the public's confidence in the profession.
11. It seems to me from the material that has been placed before me, in particular what I have read from the hearing on 30 July 2008, that the allegations against the respondent are serious and appear on the face of those documents alone to be reasonably well supported. In short, it is said that the respondent was grossly negligent in his treatment of adults in a care home environment where the patients were particularly vulnerable. The grounds of the alleged negligence were that he had failed to administer quite basic medicines which were necessary for those patients and in circumstances where the failure to administer them could have have had potentially serious effects upon their health and well-being.
12. I am therefore satisfied that it remains in the public interest that this interim order of suspension is maintained. I am assured that the proceedings are now well advanced and that they will be determined within a reasonable period. However for the avoidance of any doubt or uncertainty, I believe that the period sought of 12 months' extension is reasonable in all the circumstances. Therefore I make the order that is applied for.
13. MISS THOMPSON: I am grateful. I have a draft order; I pass that up.