CO/2965/2010
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 710 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE  COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Monday  15  March  2010

B e f o r e:

MRS  JUSTICE  DOBBS  DBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
B E T W E E N:

NURSING  &  MIDWIFERY  COUNCIL
Applicant
- v -

BERNADETTE  MARIA  GERRARD
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7404 1400; Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Miss Clare Strickland (instructed by Nursing & Midwifery Council)
appeared on behalf of the Applicant

The Respondent was not present and was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

J U D G M E N T
Monday  15  March  2010

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS:  
1.  The applicant, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, seeks an extension of the interim suspension order made on 19 September 2006.  The extension sought is for a period of six months, to run from 17 March 2010.  The original order in September 2006 was for 18 months.  It has twice been extended for periods of twelve months, on 18 March 2008 and 17 March 2009.  The order is due to expire on 16 March 2010, namely tomorrow.  The application is made under article 31.8 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

2.  The application and supporting documents were served on the respondent by means of Recorded Delivery on 3 March 2010.  No representations have been made by the respondent.  That is in keeping with all previous applications and review hearings.  On the very first occasion the respondent indicated no objection to the making of an interim order.  Thereafter she has not participated in these proceedings.

3.  The background of the case is as follows.  It came to that attention of the Nursing and Midwifery Council that the respondent had been charged with manslaughter in relation to an incident in which a patient at a nursing home where the respondent worked had died as a result of untreated epilepsy.  Two nurses were arrested and charged in relation to the death.  The interim suspension order which was placed on the respondent's registration on 19 September 2006 was subject to regular review.  

4.  On 22 May 2008, at Wolverhampton Crown Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years.  There were further reviews and, as I have already noted, two extensions by the High Court.

5.  Following the respondent's conviction there was an investigation by the Council and the matter was referred to the Competence and Conduct Committee.  The case is fixed for hearing on 17 May 2010.  The reason for the request for the six month extension is that, should there be a need for the case to be adjourned, it allows the case to be heard within the time limit of the order.

6.  There has been some delay in this case due to a request originally for the matter not to be listed before the co-defendant's appeal against conviction, but the Council has decided, quite rightly, that it cannot keep the case against the respondent on hold in view of the sketchy information that has been provided by the co-defendant.

7.  The grounds for the making of the order can be found in the transcript of the proceedings of 19 September 2006 at page 48 of the hearing bundle.  The Committee was given appropriate legal advice by the assessor and came to the conclusion that such an order was necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest.  Ensuing reviews have been carried out in similar fashion with advice being given by a legal assessor and reasons given by the Committee for the continuance of the order.  On each occasion, as I have noted, there have been no representations by the respondent that the order should be lifted.

8.  The factors to be taken into account are that this was a serious incident of gross negligence during the course of the respondent's work which led to the death of a 36 year old woman.  Whilst it is clear from the mitigation presented at court that the respondent was devastated by the incident and showed great remorse, many years have now elapsed since the incident in 2004, and, of importance, is that there should be no chance of any risk of harm to the public by allowing the respondent to practise.  There have been no representations to the effect that it is inappropriate for the order to be continued, the respondent having had notice of all hearings, including the present one.  There is no evidence of prejudice or hardship to the respondent in the continuation of the order.

9.  Whilst it is unfortunate that this matter has not been allocated for hearing earlier, given that there is now a fixed date for the hearing, it is appropriate (a) for the protection of the public and (b) other public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession, that this extension be granted for the period of time requested.

10.  I have been handed a draft order by Miss Strickland.  I have had an opportunity to consider it.  The order will be in the terms of the draft that has been put before me.

MISS STRICKLAND:  I am grateful, my Lady.