Nursing and Midwifery Council v Adina

MR JUSTICE BURNETT: This is an application to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent's registration by the investigating committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council on 21 January 2009. The suspension has twice been extended by order of this court, first by Kenneth Parker J and second by Lindblom J on 20 January 2011.

The underlying complaints made against Rolando Adina, the respondent, are serious, but stretch back to a period before March 2008. There are three charges which he faces which are set out in the papers, which it is unnecessary to set out. On the last occasion, Lindblom J expressed his concerns about the very slow way in which the underlying disciplinary proceedings were being progressed. As it happens, the respondent was deported from the United Kingdom some time ago (the precise date is unclear, although it appears to have been in 2008 itself) and thus he is taking no part in these proceedings.

A full hearing was arranged for May 2011, but two of the witnesses were, at short notice, unable to attend and thus the committee adjourned the matter further. Mr Lucarotti, who appears for the applicants this morning, tells me that there are a number of witnesses who are being traced by investigators instructed by the applicant. That throws into fairly sharp relief the potential problems which there may be in pursuing this matter to a full hearing. They apparently have not yet been located.

The application which of course is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 is for an extension of eight months effectively from now. The lengthy extension is sought to cover the possibility that it will not be possible to list the hearing of the underlying matter until the early part of next year.

I echo the concerns identified by Lindblom J when the matter was last before this court. Extensions of suspension orders do not follow as a matter of course. The principles are set out in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. Having read the papers and read Mr Lucarotti's helpful skeleton argument, I am satisfied that in the circumstances which obtain, it is appropriate to extend the interim suspension order. However, I am unpersuaded that it is right to do so for as long as eight months. I extend it therefore for a period of four months, which in my judgment should enable the applicant to find its witnesses and arrange a hearing.

I appreciate that in the ordinary course, hearings are fixed some months in advance. Nonetheless, this is a case where it will be necessary, in the interests of finality if nothing else, to ensure that there is a hearing as soon as possible. Should that prove impossible and a further application is needed or desired to extend the interim suspension order, I would expect there to be rather more by way of information about the witnesses whom it is intended to call and the efforts made to find them.

Serious though these allegations undoubtedly are, it would be inappropriate to continue an interim suspension order if it becomes apparent that there is unlikely to be any full hearing.

Thank you very much.

MR LUCAROTTI: My Lord, I do have a draft copy of the order, if that assists.

MR JUSTICE BURNETT: Yes, why not, and then I can amend it.

MR LUCAROTTI: My Lord, I have made the amendments.

MR JUSTICE BURNETT: You have done that already. Thank you.

MR LUCAROTTI: Just for the record, my Lord, I have until 20 November. That is the date that I have put.