Jones v Commission for Social Care Inspection

Under the statutory regime for care-home managers, the applicant must demonstrate that he is a fit person before registration can be granted. The registration authority must be satisfied that the statutory and regulatory requirements are, and will continue to be, met; it does not bear the burden of proving unfitness.

The fitness criteria include integrity and good character, requisite qualifications, skills and experience, physical and mental fitness, and full and satisfactory information on specified matters. An applicant’s history may bear on more than one criterion. An expert tribunal should reassess the matter where the evidence does not compel a single outcome.

Mr Jones, an experienced registered mental-health nurse, managed care homes operated by Prime Life. After the Registered Homes Act 1984 was replaced by the Care Standards Act 2000, he applied for statutory registration as manager of Middlefield House. The Commission refused the application, relying on professional disciplinary proceedings, concealment of those matters and his interview performance.

The Care Standards Tribunal allowed his appeal: [2003] EWCST 0168 (NC). Sullivan J allowed the Commission’s statutory appeal: [2004] EWHC 918 (Admin). The Court of Appeal considered the burden of proof, the statutory fitness criteria, appellate disposal and related procedural safeguards.

Disposition

Mr Jones’s appeal was dismissed. The Commission’s cross-appeal was unsuccessful. The fitness issue was to be reheard by a different panel of the Care Standards Tribunal, chaired by the President or a chairman specially selected by the President.

1. Burden of proof. The new scheme under the Care Standards Act 2000 differs materially from the former scheme. Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, refusal depended on the authority being satisfied that the applicant was not fit. Under the new scheme, section 13(2) requires registration to be granted only where the authority is satisfied that the applicable requirements are being and will continue to be met. Regulation 9 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 sets the relevant fitness standards. The applicant therefore bears the burden of demonstrating fitness to the Commission and, on appeal, to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had wrongly placed that burden on the Commission.
2. Fitness criteria. Regulation 9 requires the applicant to be a person of integrity and good character, to possess the necessary qualifications, skills and experience having regard to the care home and its service users, and to be physically and mentally fit. Full and satisfactory information must also be available concerning the specified matters in Schedule 2. The Commission and Tribunal must assess an applicant’s history holistically. An adverse professional finding may be relevant both to skills and experience and to character.
3. Appellate disposal. Although the Commission relied on powerful evidence, it was inappropriate for the Court of Appeal to decide that only one result was possible. The expert Tribunal should appraise the evidence after applying the correct legal principles.
4. Procedural guidance. Because knowingly making a materially false or misleading statement in an application is a criminal offence under section 27(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000, the Tribunal should ensure that an appropriate warning against incrimination is given before questioning an applicant about his state of mind. The Tribunal remained free to consider arguments advanced by either party, but the court criticised any late, emotive enlargement of the Commission’s original grounds.
5. The decision in Alternative Futures Ltd v National Care Standards Commission [2002] 101-111 NC concerned a different issue and provided no assistance on the burden of proof.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2004] EWCA Civ 1713. Mr Jones’s appeal was dismissed. The Commission’s cross-appeal was also unsuccessful, and the matter was directed to be reheard by a different Tribunal panel.
• Administrative Court: Sullivan J, [2004] EWHC 918 (Admin). The Commission’s statutory appeal was allowed and the Care Standards Tribunal’s decision was quashed.
• Care Standards Tribunal: decision cited as [2003] EWCST 0168 (NC). Mr Jones’s appeal against refusal of registration was allowed.
• Registration authority: the National Care Standards Commission refused Mr Jones’s registration application on 4 April 2003. Its relevant functions were later transferred to the Commission for Social Care Inspection.