Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Anor
[2024] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Joanne Budzichowska v The Nursing and Midwifery Council
8 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2835 (Admin)
High Court
A nurse was accused of mistreating patients. An initial suspension was challenged, but the court upheld a shorter suspension because the new evidence showed a pattern of bad behavior and a risk to patients. The judge considered the positive things the nurse did but said protecting patients was more important.
Key Facts
- •Joanne Budzichowska, a registered nurse, faced allegations of misconduct, including neglect, abuse (verbal, psychological, and potential physical), and dishonesty related to medication administration at two care homes.
- •An interim suspension order for 18 months was imposed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Fitness to Practise Committee on June 5, 2024.
- •Budzichowska challenged the suspension order, arguing it was disproportionate and failed to adequately consider her positive work history and lack of recent complaints.
- •The High Court considered previous interim orders that were either less restrictive or not imposed at all.
- •The court found new evidence available to the June 2024 panel that wasn't available to earlier panels, including witness statements and a revised investigation into Referral 1.
Legal Principles
Interim orders must be necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest.
Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, Article 31(2)
The court exercises original jurisdiction in considering interim order applications; it is not a judicial review.
Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145; General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369
Proportionality is key; the court balances public safety, public interest, and the practitioner's interests.
General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369; R (Sheikh) v General Dental Council [2007] EWHC 2972 (Admin)
The court will show respect for the panel's decision but is not bound by it. The court can consider subsequent developments and fresh evidence.
Sandler v General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1029 (Admin)
Adequate reasons are required for the decision, but not excessively detailed reasons.
Abdullah v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 2506 (Admin); Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v GMC & Uppal [2015] EWHC 1304 (Admin)
NMC guidance on interim orders emphasizes risk assessment, weighing risks against the professional's interests, and proportionality.
NMC guidance ‘Decision making factors for interim orders’ (version dated 10 April 2024)
Outcomes
The application to terminate the interim suspension order was refused.
The court found that the June 2024 panel had access to new evidence (witness statements and a revised investigation into Referral 1) not available to previous panels, justifying a different decision. The serious nature of the allegations, the vulnerability of the residents, and the risk of repetition outweighed the applicant's interests.
The duration of the interim suspension order was reduced from 18 months to 12 months.
The NMC conceded the original 18-month period was disproportionate given the 4-month timeframe to the substantive hearing and the possibility of adjournments.