Nursing and Midwifery Council v Soondressen Cooppen

The Nursing and Midwifery Council seeks an extension of the interim suspension order made against the respondent under Article 31(2) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (SI 2002/253 as amended) and made by the Practice Committee of the Council on 9 January 2015 for a period of 18 months which suspended the respondent's registration as a nurse.

The order was made on the basis that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. That order has since been reviewed by the Council on six occasions, most recently on 16 December 2016 and is due to expire on 7 April as a result of an extension made by order of this Court on 6 July 2016.

This application is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. An extension of 9 months is sought in order that the Fitness to Practise proceedings may be completed.

The proper approach for this court dealing with an application of this sort is set out in the Court of Appeal's decision in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. Although that case was concerned with a different disciplinary regime, its approach is equally applicable here. There, the court emphasised the importance of taking into account such matters as:

I must consider all the evidence and be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Council has established that the criteria, namely the protection of the public and the public interest, justify an extension of the interim suspension order.

The essential facts are set out in the witness statement of Lavinia Tomescu of the Council and the exhibits thereto.

First, the allegations made against the respondent are serious ones and relate to referrals to the Council by the Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group, the Care Quality Commission and a member of the public. They relate to multiple concerns about the conditions in care provided within three care homes either owned by the respondent or for which he was the registered manager.

Secondly, although some time has passed since the interim order was initially made on 9 January 2015, I accept the explanation by the Council for the delay set out in Ms Tomescu's statement and exhibits and summarised at paragraph 15 of that statement. Those delays include delays associated with a police investigation and the need for further investigatory work by the Council. I am satisfied that the Council has not unreasonably delayed progressing the case.

Thirdly, while the extension of the order will cause the respondent some prejudice, I bear in mind the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession until the final conclusion of the proceedings in respect of serious allegations affecting the well-being and safety of vulnerable individuals.

Fourthly, I also note that the respondent has recently reengaged with the disciplinary proceedings. He has, however, not responded to the present application by the Council and did not appear today.

Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that an extension of the interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. An extension of 9 months is appropriate to allow the process to be concluded. I therefore extend the interim suspension order to 7 January 2018.