Chigoya v Health and Care Professions Council

At the interim-order stage, a professional regulator must not determine the truth or credibility of disputed allegations. Its task is to decide whether suspension or conditions are necessary for public protection, the wider public interest, or the registrant’s interests. The court applies the same limited approach when reviewing or terminating an interim order. It may consider the consequences if the allegations are true, without prejudging the criminal or disciplinary proceedings. A hearing remains necessary, but its practical purpose is principally to allow the registrant to explain the impact of the order and address whether less onerous conditions would provide adequate protection. An interim suspension may therefore be justified pending trial where the allegations are serious and suspension is required to protect vulnerable service users or public confidence.

Clayton Chigoya, a registered social worker, challenged an interim suspension order imposed by the Investigating Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council after he was charged with possessing indecent images of children and extreme pornographic images. The Committee later reviewed and continued the order under article 31(6) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.

Although Mr Chigoya brought an appeal under CPR Part 52, the court treated it as an application under article 31(12)(a) to terminate the interim suspension. He argued that the Committee had failed to assess the credibility of the allegations, weigh his evidence, consider the likelihood of harm, and wait for the criminal trial. The central issue was the proper scope of the Committee’s and the court’s function at the interim stage.

1. Outcome. The appeal, treated as an application to terminate the interim suspension order, was dismissed. The court ordered Mr Chigoya to pay the HCPC’s costs in the reduced sum of £7,500.
2. Limited interim function. Under article 32(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, an interim order may be made where suspension or conditions are necessary for public protection, otherwise in the public interest, or in the interests of the person concerned. The Committee was not required, and had no power at this stage, to decide whether the underlying allegations were true or to determine disputed credibility issues.
3. Application of authority. Following Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 145, the relevant question was whether the allegations, rather than their truth or falsity, justified an interim order. The same principles applied to the HCPC’s statutory framework.
4. Consequences if allegations were true. The Committee was entitled to consider the consequences for public confidence and vulnerable service users if the allegations proved true. An interim suspension adopted a cautious and prudent approach and did not prejudge the criminal charges.
5. Hearing and alternatives. The hearing protected the registrant’s interests by allowing him to explain the impact of an order and argue for less onerous conditions. The Committee was entitled to conclude that no workable, verifiable and appropriate conditions could provide sufficient protection in the circumstances.

• Investigating Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council: imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months on 8 August 2014 and continued it on review on 19 February 2015.
• High Court (Administrative Court): treated the appeal under CPR Part 52 as an application under article 31(12)(a) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 and dismissed it.