[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 Apiado [2012] EWHC 3386 (Admin) (07 November 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/3386.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 3386 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		7 November 2012

1. MRS JUSTICE LANG: The Nursing and Midwifery Council ("NMC") applies for an extension to the interim suspension order made by a panel of the NMC's Practice Committee on 9 May 2011 to suspend the respondent's registration for 18 months. The order expires on 8 November 2012 and an extension for a further three months is sought until 7 February 2013.
2. The application is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Order 2001. I have had regard to the case of General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369 where the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the approach to be adopted by the court in considering applications to extend interim orders.
3. In this case, the respondent faces allegations that his fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct because he engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with a vulnerable patient in a clinical setting. He has been dismissed for gross misconduct.
4. When the interim order was imposed on 9 May 2011, the panel concluded that a suspension order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest because of the nature of the allegations. Conditions on practice would not be adequate or appropriate as the respondent had shown little insight into his behaviour and there was a risk of repetition. The panel had no information regarding the registrant's circumstances, but the panel concluded that the public interest outweighed the interests of the registrant in any event. The interim order was reviewed on 6 February, 16 May and 28 August 2012.
5. I have seen a witness statement setting out the progress of the case to date. Referral to the NMC was in April 2011. There has been significant delay. The matter had to be investigated by the police and the NMC awaited the outcome of the police investigation before carrying out its own investigation. No criminal charges were brought, so on 9 August 2011 the NMC instructed solicitors to conduct an investigation.
6. On 18 April 2012, the investigating committee referred the case to the Conduct and Competence Committee. On 1 August, a reviewing lawyer decided it should be heard at a substantive meeting. On 16 August, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee decided there was a public interest in it being heard at a public hearing. The hearing is now scheduled to commence on 12 December. It is listed for three days. However, if for some unforeseen reason it does not conclude then, more time would be needed, hence the application for an extension until February 2013.
7. The respondent has not attended court here today and has not communicated with the NMC regarding this application for an extension of time.
8. Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to extend the interim order for three months on the grounds that it is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest. Without an order, there remains a risk of patient harm and a danger that public confidence in regulatory process will be undermined.