Health and Care Professions Council v Waring

[2016] EWHC 696 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2016] EWHC 696 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
23 February 2016
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Professional discipline Interim suspension orders
Keywords
interim suspension order professional regulation public protection public interest registered social worker sexual offences Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 Article 13
Outcome
application granted
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Under article 13 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, an interim suspension order may be extended where it remains necessary for public protection and in the public interest. The court may grant a further period that avoids repeated applications for short extensions, provided the order is subject to regular review. The defendant should retain liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order.

Factual background

The Health and Care Professions Council sought a further 12-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on a registered social worker. The order had previously been extended by the High Court and was due to expire. The defendant had since been convicted of multiple sexual offences and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, with a sexual harm prevention order. The Council’s investigating committee was due to determine whether there was a case to answer. The issue was whether the interim order should be extended under article 13 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.

Held

  1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was confirmed and extended for a further 12 months from 23 February 2016.
  2. The extension was justified because the order remained necessary for the protection of the public and in the public interest. The defendant’s convictions for serious sexual offences were particularly significant.
  3. A 12-month extension was appropriate to avoid repeated applications for shorter periods and the associated costs. The order would be regularly reviewed in the meantime.
  4. The defendant had liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order after giving prior written notice to the Council.
  5. There was no order as to costs.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

Not stated in the judgment.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.