[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 Harrison [2016] EWHC 1742 (Admin) (21 January 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1742.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 1742 (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
		21 January 2016

1. MRS JUSTICE MAY: I have read the schedule of charges and the chronological details of the investigation against Mrs Harrison including the circumstances giving rise to it, all set out in the bundle and in the skeleton. I have had regard to article 31(8) of the 2001 Order which requires me before granting any extension to be satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned. I am satisfied that this extension is necessary for protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest. There is no objection from Amanda Jane Harrison, the respondent, who has this morning put in a signed form saying that she does not oppose the application and that she does not intend to be here.
2. I have taken into account the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients and the reasons why this case has not yet been concluded. I am told that it is for hearing in February but that there has been necessarily a degree of complexity given that the allegations span 8 years from 2005 to 2013. I can appreciate that it would have taken time to investigate allegations spanning so many years.
3. There is no identified prejudice to Mrs Harrison if the order continues. She sets out none, and has said that she does not oppose it. I am told that the conditions of practice order that is currently in place is the least restrictive one that panels have the power to impose, and it is that order which is sought to be extended this morning.
4. I propose to make the order extending it for the reasons I have given, and for the 3 months sought, despite the fact that goes on for a period of time beyond the contemplated date of the hearing; proceedings can occasionally slip, so some leeway is sought in the order. Mrs Harrison is not prejudiced by the fact that this extension goes beyond the currently scheduled date for the hearing as the interim order will only continue to run beyond the dates of the scheduled hearing if the hearing does not happen or has not reached a final resolution. The order is granted.