[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 Binks [2014] EWHC 3789 (Admin) (30 October 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3789.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 3789 (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
		30 October 2014

1. MR JUSTICE COBB: By application dated 21 October 2014, the Nursing and Midwifery Council seeks an extension of the interim suspension order made initially on 16 November 2011, under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. The NMC seeks the extension for a period of three months from 31 October 2014. The application was served on the respondent by recorded delivery and first class post.
2. The respondent has not attended this hearing, and on arrival at court today I have been presented with a signed consent form indicating that she has received the claim form informing her that the application to extend the interim order will be heard today, 30 October; that she does not intend to attend the hearing, nor does she intend to be represented; she does not oppose the application; she consents to the interim order to which she is subject being extended for the period of time sought by the applicant. In fact she consents to the application being dealt with without a hearing, although that appears to have arrived too late to avoid the convening of the parties for today's purposes.
3. It is unnecessary in the circumstances for me to rehearse the background facts, or indeed the troubled history, of this particular matter. It is worth I think recording, however, that when the initial period of suspension was imposed on 16 November 2011, the panel then determined that an 18-month interim suspension order would be appropriate, proportionate and necessary to prevent the real risk of significant harm to the health, safety and welfare of the public, it being envisaged that the period of 18 months would be adequate to allow the NMC to conclude its investigation into the respondent's fitness to practise. We shortly arrive at the third anniversary of that panel determination, and a period of twice that envisaged by the panel has now nearly elapsed. In this respect I note the observations of two of the judges who have previously been invited to extend interim suspension, namely His Honour Judge Thornton QC and Mostyn J. I entirely associate myself with their articulated dissatisfaction with the length of this particular process.
4. In fairness, of course, it had been envisaged that by the end of this month the process would have been complete. At a health committee hearing convened on 3 October, the respondent was not present or represented. She admitted the charge. The panel considered it appropriate to hear the case, notwithstanding the respondent's absence, and having heard from Dr Purvaiz, the NMC sought to amend the charge to reflect his revised opinion. The panel then permitted the amendment and formed the view that although the revised diagnosis is one that the respondent has already seen, her admission was to a different diagnosis, and considered that it would in those circumstances be unfair to the respondent if the hearing were to proceed without her being able properly to respond to the amended charge.
5. In the circumstances, the hearing was further adjourned and is now scheduled to take place on 14 November 2014, in approximately two weeks' time. I very much hope (it perhaps goes without saying in light of what I have just said) that the matters can be properly, fairly and adequately concluded on 14 November.
6. Miss Hoggett-Jones invites me to permit a period of three months at this stage for the further interim suspension to accommodate any currently unforeseen eventuality of a problem arising in relation to the convening of the panel or otherwise. I am prepared to grant that three month extension, particularly in view of the respondent's acceptance of (or acquiescence in) it, and that is the order which I propose to make.
7. MISS HOGGETT-JONES: I'm very grateful, my Lord. I do have a draft order if it would assist.
8. MR JUSTICE COBB: Thank you very much. (Handed) Yes. I am prepared to make the order in the terms drafted.
9. MISS HOGGETT-JONES: I'm very grateful indeed.
10. MR JUSTICE COBB: Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Hoggett-Jones.