CO/10891/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3404 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 
 
Tuesday 23 October 2012 
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE BURNETT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NURSING & MIDWIFERY COUNCIL 
Applicant 
v 

THIPANE 
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Miss Cassandra Scarbrough (instructed by Nursing & Midwifery Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent was not represented, did not attend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE BURNETT:  This is an application under Article 31 (8) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension to the interim order made by a panel of the Council's Practice Committee on 27 April 2011.  At that stage the committee imposed conditions on the respondent's registration for eighteen months.  It is unnecessary to recite the background.  
2.	The essence of the conditions was to enable her to work at a particular venue under supervision.  Although the respondent started work with that organisation, alas from her point of view the employment was not sustained.  Thus when the matter came back before the Practice Committee at one of the periodic reviews, the decision was taken to impose an interim suspension order.  That was because conditions would be fruitless in the absence of an identified employer.  It was made clear at that meeting of the committee that should the respondent find employment then she might apply to the committee to re‑impose conditions rather than suspension but reflecting the prospective employer.  
3.	The suspension was ordered to be in place for eighteen months from 27 April 2011 and thus expires on 26 October 2012.  The application to extend is founded upon a detailed explanation of the circumstances of the case and the progress made in investigation in respect of it.  The position is that a hearing is to be held at which a number of witnesses will be called.  It is anticipated ‑ but not guaranteed ‑ that the hearing will take place within the next six months.  
4.	Miss Scarbrough, who appears on behalf of the applicant today, has drawn my attention to the well‑known decision of General Medical Council v Dr Stephen Chee Cheung Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.  Applying the criteria discussed in that decision, I am satisfied that it is appropritae for an extension of six months to be granted.  
5.	I should note that the respondent has not attended today.  The background to her involvement in the disciplinary process is this.  Originally the Royal College of Nursing was representing her in these proceedings.  It appears that that may no longer be the case, and there is at least some question about whether the respondent has disengaged from the process.  But because she is not here, in addition to extending the interim order by six months to 26 April 2013, I direct that the respondent may have permission on giving three days' written notice to the applicant to apply to this court to vary or discharge the order.  
6.	In the course of argument I mentioned to Miss Scarbrough an expression that crept into the transcript before the committee in this case, namely that the application was for "the standard eighteen months" (page 75 in my bundle).  As has often been observed, eighteen months is the maximum period in respect of which Parliament has empowered the committee to make interim measures.  It is not and should not become a standard period.  
7.	I will sign the order that has been drafted helpfully by Miss Scarbrough.
8.	Miss Scarbrough, thank you for the skeleton argument.  It was enormously helpful.