Background
Eunice Aisedu-Baning, a registered midwife, sought the revocation of an interim suspension order (ISO) imposed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s (NMC) Fitness to Practise Committee. The ISO was put in place on 17 October 2025, pending her appeal against a striking-off order. The original allegations, dating back to November 2017, concerned her falsifying medical records for two newborn babies (recording blood sugar readings that were not taken or were inaccurate) and administering an unknown medication to a patient. The NMC received the referral in February 2018.
After a lengthy 76-day hearing, the Fitness to Practise Committee concluded on 17 October 2025, finding several charges of falsifying records and dishonesty proved. The charge related to administering unknown medication was not proved. The Committee determined that Ms. Aisedu-Baning’s fitness to practise was impaired and that a striking-off order was the only appropriate sanction. The ISO was then imposed to cover the period during which her appeal against the striking-off order would be heard. Ms. Aisedu-Baning argued that the ISO was wrong, citing a seven-year gap since the alleged incidents without further complaints, personal financial and health hardship, and alleged unfairness in the substantive hearing process.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court, presided over by HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, refused Ms. Aisedu-Baning’s application to revoke the interim suspension order. The Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to terminate or vary an interim order under Article 31(12) of the Nursing & Midwifery Order 2001 but emphasized that it would only do so if it considered the original order to be “wrong.” In cases involving an appeal against a striking-off order, the court must be “strongly of the view that the substantive appeal is bound to succeed,” a high threshold designed to prioritize public protection.
The Court found that the Fitness to Practise Committee’s serious findings of misconduct and dishonesty were crucial and justified the imposition of the ISO. It rejected the argument that the absence of an earlier ISO undermined the decision, stating that the Committee’s final determination of impairment and the striking-off order justified the need for an interim measure pending appeal. The Court also considered Ms. Aisedu-Baning’s claims of financial and health hardship, and allegations of an unfair substantive hearing due to her absences or prior judicial review attempts, but concluded that these did not meet the high bar required to revoke an order made for public protection. Her previous unsuccessful attempts to judicially review the disciplinary proceedings further solidified the Court’s stance that her substantive appeal was not “bound to succeed.”
Key Takeaways
- Courts maintain a high threshold for revoking interim suspension orders imposed by professional regulatory bodies, especially when an appeal against a striking-off order is pending.
- Serious findings of professional misconduct and dishonesty are paramount and can justify an interim suspension even if such a measure was not immediately imposed after the initial complaint.
- Claims of personal hardship (financial, health) are generally insufficient grounds to revoke an interim suspension if public protection is deemed to be at risk.
- Previous unsuccessful judicial review applications challenging the fairness or timing of disciplinary proceedings will weigh against arguments for revoking an interim order.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts give to professional regulatory bodies like the NMC when it comes to protecting the public. It clarifies that once a Fitness to Practise Committee makes serious findings of misconduct leading to a striking-off order, an interim suspension is likely to be upheld during the appeal process, even if there was a substantial delay between the initial complaint and the final determination. This case serves as a reminder to healthcare professionals that appealing a striking-off decision will not automatically suspend interim regulatory measures, especially when the grounds for suspension are rooted in findings of dishonesty and patient safety concerns.