Case No.CO/11363/2009
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE THORNTON QC
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF NURSING MID-WIFERY COUNCIL
Claimant
v
PHIRI
Defendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Pataky appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant was not represented and did not attend
J U D G M E N T
JUDGE THORNTON: This is an application by the Nursing and Mid-wifery Council under Article 31 seeking to extend the period of the interim suspension of the respondent Phiri from practice.
The brief background is that on 20 December 2007 a letter of referral was received from the relevant mid-wifery officer that stated Mr Phiri had been suspended from duty following investigation in relation to no fewer than ten different patients. The relevant panel considered the case on 2 April 2008 and directed an investigation into the allegations and, on 23 April 2008, granted an interim suspension order for 18 months. The investigations continued through until March 2009. There was, it would appear, a period between March 2009 and 19 August 2009 when the result of the investigations was available for consideration by the panel. The reasons for that relatively short period of possible delay have not been provided. But I am satisfied that there is no criticism that can be made of the processing of this particular case.
On 19 August 2009 the panel considered the material and directed the case be referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) who met on 1 October and decided to refer the case for a hearing.
The need for this application arises from the structure of the Article which provides that a court application must be made to continue the effect of the interim suspension order. What is sought is an extension of the interim suspension order for a period of nine months from 22 October 2009 (when the present period of suspension would otherwise run out) and to extend it to 22 July 2010. It is in fact envisaged that the relevant hearing before the CCC will take place in the hearing window January to March 2010.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order sought. I have in mind the relevant principles set out by the Court of Appeal in cases of this kind to which I have been referred.
In parting, I should refer to the fact that the respondent was not present but there was produced to me evidence of service of notice of this application and indeed service at three different addresses, the first being the last known residence of the respondent in this country, the second to a location in South Africa and the third to one in Zimbabwe which are alternative residences that had been notified to the applicant. There is evidence that these documents were served by registered post or recorded delivery and no non-return has been notified to the applicant.
In all those circumstances I grant the order sought.
What are the variations in the order that you are looking for? I received a copy of the draft order. You told me that it needed modification.
MR PATAKY: The last date should be 2010.
JUDGE THORNTON: The order amended in that way is the order you are seeking.
MR PATAKY: Yes.
JUDGE THORNTON: You are not seeking any costs order.
MR PATAKY: No.
JUDGE THORNTON: The order ought to recite who the judge is.
(Case was recalled)
JUDGE THORNTON: I am adding to Phiri that the respondent has liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on giving three days' written notice.