Interim order hearings - NMC and SWE

This week I have represented two different registrants, in front of two different regulators, for two different types of allegations; but with the same outcome.

The first hearing was to hear the NMC’s application for an interim suspension order. My client was accused of theft of drugs from both their ex-employer and their colleague. There was a significant amount of witness evidence from the ex-employer, from a senior member of the management team and two employees. As I have said before, a forensic approach is required in such cases, dissecting the evidence and seeking to undermine the reliability of the witnesses. We were assisted by the presence of one of the NMC’s legally qualified panel members, who I tend to find are more receptive to such an approach.

The outcome was as desired: the panel found that the evidence against my client was unreliable and declined to impose any interim restriction whatsoever.

The second hearing was a review of an interim conditions of practice order before Social Work England (“SWE”). My client had been subject to the order for over 18 months, and it had already been extended by the High Court. SWE argued that the order ought to be continued on the basis that my client had not demonstrated safe practice over a sufficient period and that their insight was insufficiently developed. The allegations were that my client had inadequately safeguarded a family over a period of months, and that they had missed a visit with another service user and dishonestly recorded that the visit had been carried out. We argued against the continuation of the order, using SWE’s own documentation against them. Finally, my client got the outcome they had been seeking - interim order revoked.

These cases demonstrate two principles - the first is to attack cases at the first opportunity; the second is that if the first attack is unsuccessful, bide your time and wait for another opportunity.