CO/990/2013 
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 364 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 7 February 2013
 
B e f o r e: 

GERALDINE ANDREWS QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NURSING AND MIDWIFERY COUNCIL 
Claimant

v 

KASIYE 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Timothy Hogman (instructed by the NMC) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant was not present and was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  This is an application that is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for an extension to an interim suspension order which was made by a Panel of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Practice Committee on 12 August 2011 to suspend the respondent's registration for 18 months.  An extension of the interim suspension order for a further 7 months from today is sought.  It is anticipated that a 7‑month extension will enable the matter to be resolved finally, in that in that time it is thought that a decision can be made by the NMC lawyer as to whether or not to recommend a substantive hearing or a meeting and then for another Panel to decide on whether or not to accept that recommendation.  If a hearing does take place it is likely to take place in May or June 2013.  
2.	The background to this matter is set out in some detail in the witness statement of Mr Salam Kaj and it is clear that the respondent faces very serious allegation of misconduct in the treatment of vulnerable patients and residents of a care home.  The draft charges are extremely serious and essentially the original decision to suspend was made in the interests of public protection.  One of the features of this case is a lack of cooperation and response by the respondent.  Although there has been a degree of delay in relation to getting documents and access to witnesses, this is not something that can be laid entirely at the door of the applicant, the NMC.  Therefore the only real concern about the matter, apart from that delay, is whether or not the respondent is adequately protected and has adequate notice.  As regards adequate notice of this application, I am told by counsel that the Royal College of Nursing has very recently informed his clients that they no longer represent Miss Kasiye.  How long that state of affairs has been going on one knows not.  As regards direct notice being given to her of the application, I am also told by counsel that somebody is receiving the papers at the address that has been given but there has been no attempt to engage with the process.  
3.	In the light of that, and in the light of the fact that the order will have inbuilt safeguards of two kinds, I am prepared to make it.  The safeguards concerned are first of all, that the respondent will have an opportunity to apply to the court to vary or discharge the order and may do so at any time on substantive grounds, and secondly, the matter is under review as a matter of statutory review every three months.  That means that in a seven‑month extension period there is the possibility of at least one and possibly two statutory reviews, but either party can ask for early review and therefore if there is a good reason why this lady can convince the relevant authorities she should not be suspended any further, she will have the opportunity to make that case out at an early review if she so chooses.  Given there are those inbuilt protections I am satisfied it in the interests of justice that this order should be made and I so direct. 
4.	MR HOGMAN:  I have taken the liberty of drafting an order.
5.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Thank you very much, Mr Hogman, I will have that.  The three days' written notice I can see why you need three days.  Should the order actually specifically say how the respondent is to do it in practical terms by including an address for notification or something of that kind?  I am just concerned if she is representing herself that she needs to know, in the terms of the order, exactly what it is that she has to do in order to notify your client.
6.	MR HOGMAN:  I do take your Ladyship's point that may be a useful addition I am happy to add a further point to the bottom.
7.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Yes.
8.	MR HOGMAN:  Following your Ladyship's direction of course.
9.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Perhaps I can ask you to put something into it and let the Associate have the draft so that it can be approved and drawn up.
10.	MR HOGMAN:  Yes of course.  Would my handwritten addition... 
11.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  A handwriting addition will be fine if your handwriting is legible.  If you do not mind staying on for a couple of minutes to do it that is fine?
12.	MR HOGMAN:  That is fine.
13.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Thank you very much.
14.	MR HOGMAN:  Confirm exactly what you would like me to add?
15.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Simply that in the notice provision specify something like to give three days' written notice by sending the notice to and then specify the name and address of the solicitors or the name and address of the person at the Midwifery Council they have to send it to.
16.	MR HOGMAN:  Yes.
17.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  If necessary by first class post or by handing it in or just spell it out in a way that they will understand.
18.	MR HOGMAN:  I would be happy to.
19.	THE DEPUTY JUDGE:  Thank you very much indeed.