[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 C [2006] EWHC 3139 (Admin) (06 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3139.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 3139 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 31(8) OF THE NURSING AND MIDWIFERY ORDER 2001 TO EXTEND AN INTERIM ORDER FOR SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		6th November 2006

(Application made under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981)
1. MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES: I am persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of the respondent that at this stage the identity of the respondent should not be disclosed, or indeed that any information be disclosed or published which might tend to identify the respondent. I come to that conclusion on the basis that the proceedings before the Nursing and Midwifery Council involve confidential information relating to the respondent's health. I make clear that my ruling under the Contempt of Court Act is without prejudice to the position at any later stage in the proceedings.
(Further Submissions)
2. MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES: This is an application by the Nursing and Midwifery Council ("the NMC"), pursuant to Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension of an order of interim suspension imposed in the case of this respondent, to whom I shall refer as "C".
3. On 9th March 2005 the NMC received an allegation from the respondent's employer that during the course of his employment he had self-administered Entonox. On 17th May 2005 an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months was imposed on the respondent by a panel of the Investigations Committee, on the basis of the information which was put before them at that hearing. The grounds for the imposition of the interim suspension were that the Committee considered it necessary to protect the public, and that it was in the public interest and in the respondent's own interests.
4. A panel of the Investigations Committee considered that it was necessary to investigate the matter further by obtaining copies of the respondent's medical records. There then followed, over a number of months, a number of exchanges between the NMC and the respondent, the details of which it is not necessary to set out in this judgment, during the course of which it is fair to say there was some reluctance on the part of the respondent to co-operate with the NMC. Nevertheless, eventually a medical report from the respondent's general practitioner was received by the NMC in November 2005.
5. Thereafter, there were further requests by the NMC that the respondent should undergo a medical examination and a psychiatric investigation. The position of the respondent was that he was unwilling to undergo such an examination. In March 2006 he wrote to the NMC indicating that he wished to remove his name voluntarily from the nursing register on a permanent basis, and asked whether that would result in the NMC investigation being suspended. It was explained to him that that was not possible and that the investigation could not be suspended. The respondent has made clear that he has no intention of returning to nursing, and could see no point in attending the medical examination in view of his wish for his name to be removed.
6. The Investigations Committee has decided from time to time to continue the order as necessary in the public interest, and on the grounds upon which they originally imposed the order.
7. Mr Arnold in his submissions to me has pointed to the lack of co-operation by the respondent, but very fairly has accepted that this is a matter which could have been brought to a final hearing by the NMC at an earlier date. Nevertheless, he submits that matters are now close to conclusion and that in the circumstances the interim suspension order should be extended.
8. The present position is that the case will be referred to a panel of the Investigations Committee on 28th November 2006, to decide how to advance the investigation in view of the respondent's unwillingness to comply with the Investigating Committee's original decision that he undergo a medical examination by a psychiatrist and a drug and CDT test.
9. Mr Arnold explains that it is still not possible to indicate when this case is likely to be concluded. Bearing in mind the concession which Mr Arnold has very fairly made his morning, I express the view that it is highly desirable that the matter be dealt with sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that it is necessary to grant an extension of the interim order and that it is necessary to do so for a period of 12 months. Accordingly, I make that order.
10. MR ARNOLD: I am most grateful your Lordship. Again we have prepared a draft order. (Pause)
11. MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES: I should say that I consider it is necessary on the grounds on which the interim suspension order was originally granted by the Investigating Committee.
12. MR ARNOLD: Yes, thank you my Lord. (Draft order handed)
13. MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES: Thank you very much Mr Arnold, I am very grateful to you.
______________________________