Case No. CO/6071/2015 
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 4089 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Date: Wednesday, 16 December 2015
 
B e f o r e: 

Judge ANDREW GRUBB 
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Between: 
THE NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL
Applicant

v 

FAIZEY 
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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms A HALL (instructed by NMC) appeared on behalf of the Applicant 
 
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T (Approved) 
THE DEPUTY JUDGE:
1. The Nursing and Midwifery Council seeks an extension of the interim suspension order made against the respondent under Article 31(2) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 suspending his registration as a nurse, initially made by the Practice Committee of the Council on 26 June 2014 for a period of 18 months.  The order was made on the basis that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest.  

2. That order has been renewed and extended on four occasions, most recently on 16 September of this year and is due to expire on 25 December.  The application is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.  

3. An extension of eight months is sought in order that the Council can consider the substantive case against the respondent.  The case is due for consideration by the case examiners as the investigation is concluded, with a legal review having taken place on 10 November.  

4. The Council considers that a further period of suspension of eight months presents a realistic period to consider and, if appropriate, refer to the Conduct and Competence Committee in time to conclude any hearing.  

5. The proper approach to the court dealing with an application of this sort is set out in the Court of Appeal's decision in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.  Although that case was concerned with a different disciplinary regime, its approach is equally applicable here.  The court emphasised the importance of taking into account such matters as the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reason why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued.  

6. I must consider all the evidence and be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Council has established that the criteria, namely the protection of the public and public interest, justify an extension of the interim suspension order.  

7. The essential facts are set out in the witness statement dated 2 December 2015 of Madeleine Morgan of the Council and the exhibits thereto.  
8. First, the allegations made against the respondent are serious and widespread, which create potential risks to patients.  The allegations include medication errors over a three‑year period and in different employments recording errors and omissions in medication and causing pain to be suffered by care home residents.  

9. Secondly, the matter was referred to the Council by the Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust on 29 May 2014 and, it is fair to say, some time has passed since the interim order was initially made on 26 June 2014.  The Council accepts that there was delay between October 2014 and November 2015, when the matters referred to the Council were been investigated.  The chronology of events is set out in paragraph 6 of Ms Morgan's witness statement.  I do not repeat that here.  Suffice it to say that, although I have some concerns over the length of time taken, I accept that efforts were made, even if progress was slow.  

10. Thirdly, while the extension of the order has the potential to cause the respondent some prejudice, no specific or particular prejudice has been shown.  I bear in mind the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession while the proceedings continue in relation to allegations of this nature made against a nurse both in the context of NHS employment and in a private residential care home.  

11. Fourthly, although the respondent has so far engaged with the proceedings, he has not sought to contest this application.  Attempts to contact him by post have failed and he has not responded to messages left on his mobile phone.  

12. Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that an extension of the interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest.  An extension of eight months is appropriate.  

13. I therefore extend the interim suspension order to 25 August 2016 and I approve the draft order prepared by Ms Hall.