Redmond v Health and Care Professions Council

On a statutory appeal from a professional disciplinary panel, the High Court retains full jurisdiction to correct material errors of fact or law and to assess whether the decision was unjust because of serious procedural irregularity. It nevertheless acts as a secondary decision-maker and will be slow to interfere with primary factual findings, particularly those based on witness credibility. The court should also give appropriate respect to a professional panel’s assessment of professional standards, impairment and sanction. A suspension will not be disproportionate where the panel reasonably finds limited insight, an ongoing risk of repetition and insufficient remediation. The passage of time alone does not remove the need for a sanction.

The appellant, a registered social worker, appealed under article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 against a Conduct and Competence Committee finding that her fitness to practise was impaired. The Panel found that she had repeatedly failed to complete youth justice assessments and reports within required timescales, despite extensive management support and supervision. It imposed a nine-month suspension subject to review.

The appellant challenged the factual findings, alleged procedural and evidential unfairness, and argued that suspension was disproportionate. The central issues were whether the Panel’s factual and evaluative conclusions were properly open to it and whether the sanction was unjust or disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was governed by article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 52 and Practice Direction 52D. Under CPR52.11, the appeal could succeed if the Panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The appeal proceeded by way of rehearing, but oral evidence was exceptional. The High Court retained jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact, yet should be slow to do so where the Panel had evaluated witness evidence. The appellant had not shown that the findings were plainly wrong, that the evidence had been misread, or that the Panel’s conclusions were contrary to the evidence.
3. The Panel was entitled to prefer the evidence of the appellant’s managers. The caseload material did not conclusively establish an excessive workload. The Panel was entitled to evaluate the intensity, difficulty, speed and efficiency of the work, and to conclude that the appellant’s documentation failures were not caused by lack of knowledge or skill.
4. The description of the appellant’s failure to change her practice as deliberate was an evaluative judgment open to the Panel. It did not mean that she lacked fundamental ability or understanding. It meant that, despite prolonged intervention and clear requirements to reprioritise her work, she remained unwilling to make the necessary changes.
5. The High Court should give due respect, though not blind deference, to the professional Panel’s assessment of professional standards, current impairment and sanction. The Panel was entitled to find limited insight, insufficient remediation and a continuing risk of repetition. The risk created by late or absent assessments and reports was significant, including the risk that other professionals could not identify work undertaken or risks assessed.
6. A caution or conditions of practice would not adequately protect the public or reassure the public, particularly because conditions would substantially replicate supervision arrangements to which the appellant had not responded. Suspension offered a realistic opportunity to demonstrate insight and remediation, and the nine-month period with review was neither disproportionate nor unjust.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Health and Care Professions Council Conduct and Competence Committee: found the appellant’s fitness to practise impaired and imposed a nine-month suspension subject to review on 9 March 2016.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal under article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.