[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 Murray [2011] EWHC 2434 (Admin) (02 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2434.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 2434 (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
		2 September 2011

1. MR JUSTICE SILBER: The Nursing and Midwifery Council ("the applicant") seeks an extension of an interim extension order imposed on David James Murray, the respondent, on 4 March 2010. The extension sought comes under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 for a period of five months from 3 September 2011.
2. The respondent faces allegations that, whilst employed by a BUPA care home as a registered nurse at the Barton Brook Nursing Home, while caring for Resident A on multiple occasions, he failed to provide safe and competent care to the resident; on multiple occasions, he failed to communicate in a sensitive manner with Resident A's family; that he did not keep adequate records in relation to Resident A during shifts; and he stated to another resident of that home during shifts words to the effect "Don't you bloody start".
3. The Practice Committee of the applicant determined that the interim order should be imposed because such order was necessary for the protection of the public, and it was necessary both in the public interest and in the respondent's own interest. Since then, the respondent has had very little engagement with the applicant's disciplinary process. In April 2010, his GP provided a report to the applicant, dated 25 January, in which it was reported that he was compliant with the medication regime for his bipolar disorder, but it was noted by the GP that his mental health had caused him to seek health care advice.
4. On 11 May 2010, the applicant received a letter from the respondent in which he stated that he had suffered from a disorder for the rest of his working life, which had "destroyed" his career, and he no longer wished to continue as a registered nurse. He also wished to apologise for any "upset" he caused in the past.
5. On 21 July 2010, the respondent stated in a telephone call that he would not co-operate with the applicant and he would not participate in any examination by them, which the applicant might require. On 21 February 2011, the applicant received a letter from the respondent informing him of a change of address and stating that he would not attend an interim order review hearing and that he had no intention of being involved or employed in nursing again.
6. It is noteworthy that the respondent has not attended any interim order hearing, and has informed the applicant that he will not attend the scheduled substantive hearing which is due to start on 12 December 2011, with three witnesses being called as live witnesses. The estimated length is three days. The reason why an extension is required for five months is that it is possible that the hearing will not be concluded until February 2012, and therefore the court is asked to grant an extension for five months.
7. In the light of what I have said, it is not surprising that the respondent is not here. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the interim order should be extended for a period of five months to expire on 3 February 2012, but the respondent has permission on giving three days' written notice to the applicant to apply to the court to vary or discharge this order. I make no order for costs.