David, R (On the Application Of) v Healthcare Professionals Council

On a statutory appeal against a professional disciplinary sanction, the court conducts a re-hearing but may interfere only where the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. It is insufficient that another panel might have weighed the evidence differently.

In assessing sanction for serious dishonesty, the panel may attach substantial importance to the absence of genuine insight into the consequences of the conduct for vulnerable persons and to the effect of dishonesty on the fundamental trust required in social work. A striking-off order may be proportionate where the dishonesty is deliberate and serious and the registrant shows only limited insight.

The claimant, a registered social worker, appealed under Article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 against a Conduct and Competence Committee decision striking her off and imposing an interim suspension order pending appeal.

The proceedings followed an earlier statutory appeal in which Popplewell J allowed the regulator’s appeal, found that the original panel had applied the wrong test for dishonesty, and remitted the matter to a fresh panel: [2014] EWHC 4657 (Admin). The issues were whether the fresh panel had unfairly assessed character references and other mitigation, and whether striking off was wrong or disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal proceeded by way of re-hearing, but under CPR 52.11(3) the court could intervene only if the panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The panel was entitled to give limited weight to character references which did not show that the referees knew of the claimant’s previous findings of dishonesty and the disciplinary proceedings. That assessment did not amount to a finding that the claimant had lied to the panel.
3. The withdrawn submission concerning the claimant’s body language did not taint the decision. The court was entitled to assume that a professional disciplinary panel would follow the warnings given by the legal assessor, and nothing in the decision showed that the panel had relied on the withdrawn remark.
4. The panel was entitled to treat the claimant’s failure to tell her former employer that her fitness to practise had been found impaired as indicating a lack of transparency, while accepting her explanation about publication of the outcome on the regulator’s website. Read in the round, that matter did not receive undue prominence.
5. The decisive considerations were the deliberate and serious dishonesty, the risk posed to vulnerable children, the claimant’s failure to demonstrate genuine remorse or insight into the consequences of her conduct, and the central importance of integrity and trust in social work. Even a single finding of dishonesty was likely to result in striking off; three findings required cogent evidence of rehabilitation before a lesser sanction could be proportionate.
6. The panel had considered the claimant’s lengthy period without further complaints and other mitigation, but was entitled to conclude that suspension would not adequately reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing. It had not misdirected itself, and the fact that another panel might have balanced the factors differently was insufficient.
7. Costs followed the event. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £10,000 inclusive of VAT.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): An earlier panel imposed a caution order. On the regulator’s appeal under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, Popplewell J allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a fresh panel: [2014] EWHC 4657 (Admin).
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the fresh panel’s striking-off decision was dismissed.