CO/470/2016 
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 692 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 25 February 2016
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE KERR 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL 
Applicant

v 

DOMINGUES 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer aided transcript of the stenograph notes of WordWave International Ltd 
trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms N Dutt (instructed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE KERR:  This is an application for an extension of the statutory 18 month period for interim suspension from practice in the case of a nurse, who unfortunately suffered from two brief transient psychotic episodes in 2013 and 2014. 
2.	I heard helpful submissions and had the benefit of a skeleton argument from Ms Dutt, for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.  She sought an extension of 8 months to the initial statutory period which runs out very soon, at the end of this month, February 2016.  
3.	As I indicated during the discussion during the hearing, I was pleased to see that, unlike in other cases, the respondent had been given fair warning of today's hearing of the application and nearly a month's notice thereof; unlike in other cases, in which less than a week's notice has been given, a position that aroused the concern of Green J in the case of Nursing and Midwifery Council v Kidd & Anor [2014] EWHC 847 (Admin).  
4.	This is not one such case.  What happened, as Ms Dutt helpfully explained to me and showed me the email trail to demonstrate, was that initially, Ms Domingues, the respondent, did not fully engage with the process; but there came a time in 2015, last year, when she did.  
5.	She is a Portuguese national and is currently back in Portugal with her family.  Although she has been working there, I understand she was, as at last September, on sick leave from that work and on medication.  
6.	She produced a brief report from the psychiatrist in Portugal, advocating a graduated return to work.  That was last September, 2015.  She returned for psychiatric examination here in this country for the purposes of the current ongoing investigation, and a report was received in October 2015 from the psychiatrist instructed for the purpose of this statutory investigation.  
7.	I was then shown the papers indicating service on her of the notice of this hearing in this application to extend the statutory time period.  She initially responded by signing a consent form to today's application.  That was done on 16 February, and it concerned me to note that at the time that she signed that, she was unrepresented.  When she subsequently sought an explanation of what this application was all about that led to her changing her mind, and sending an email in the early hours of this morning withdrawing her consent and effectively saying this had gone on long enough and that the matter ought to proceed quickly.
8.	It is clear from that history and from her past co‑operation and willingness to return to this country that she is minded to co‑operate in the process and it is clear that she wishes there to be a hearing which will conclude and dispose of this matter as soon as possible.  
9.	It seemed to me that the period of 8 months advocated in this application by Ms Dutt for the NMC was considerably in excess of what is fair and reasonable, having regard to the timescale and the strong public interest as a matter of fairness to the respondent in early disposal of this matter which has gone on for some time, as the respondent herself made clear in her email.  
10.	I therefore indicated that and I state that I am satisfied that the criteria referred to in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 are met here, and I am prepared to extend time, applying the tests in that case.  
11.	But it seems to me the period sought is excessive, and there does not seem to be much now that needs doing, apart from fixing a hearing, getting on with it and holding that hearing so that the matter can be disposed of.  
12.	In the event, I was told that everybody involved is very busy, and of course that is correct, but it seems to me that it ought not to be beyond the capabilities of the NMC to convene and hold a hearing in the next 3 months.  
13.	Accordingly, I made an order that the application is granted to the extent of extending the statutory period until 4.00pm on 31 May 2016.