Northover v Social Work England

An appeal against an interim professional regulatory order is ordinarily a review of whether the tribunal’s decision was wrong, with appropriate weight given to its specialist expertise. The tribunal must not determine disputed facts at the interim stage. It must assess risk on the available information, balancing protection of the public and the interests of the professional. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the allegations and the quality and credibility of the information. Where an order is necessary, conditions are less restrictive than suspension and may be proportionate notwithstanding hardship to the professional. A court will not interfere where the tribunal considered the material fairly, followed a proper process and gave cogent reasons.

The appellant, a registered social worker, appealed under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 against an independent panel’s decision to impose a 12-month interim conditions of practice order pending a substantive fitness to practise hearing.

She alleged procedural irregularity, reliance on inaccurate information, delay, improper panel composition and breach of article 8. The appeal required the court to determine whether the panel was wrong to impose the interim order and, if so, whether the decision should be quashed, substituted or remitted.

1. Recusal. The application for recusal was refused. Apparent bias is assessed objectively by asking whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant circumstances, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The judge’s independent advisory role, remuneration through the Department for Education and lack of prior knowledge of the case did not satisfy that test.
2. Nature of the appeal. The appeal was by way of rehearing under Practice Direction 52D, but the court could not interfere merely because it might have reached a different view. Under CPR 52.21, the question was whether the panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Appropriate weight had to be given to the panel’s specialist expertise.
3. Interim risk assessment. Neither the panel nor the court could resolve disputed facts or inconsistencies at the interim stage. The task was to assess risk on the available information by balancing public protection and the social worker’s interests. Public protection included maintaining public trust and confidence and proper professional standards. The seriousness and breadth of the allegations, together with information that was credible in the sense of being not fanciful, supported the panel’s assessment of risk.
4. Procedural fairness and delay. The panel had read the material, heard the appellant and her representative, considered the submissions and gave detailed reasons. No procedural irregularity was established. The earlier delay by the HCPC did not make the later interim-order decision wrong, particularly where no objection was taken before the panel.
5. Panel composition and proportionality. The panel complied with Rule 34 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2019. Its lay chair was required by the Rules. Conditions of practice were the least restrictive available order and were proportionate once the panel had identified a real risk of harm. Article 8 was not engaged; alternatively, any interference was proportionate to public protection.
6. Disposition. The panel was entitled to impose the interim conditions of practice order. The appeal was dismissed. Consequential costs submissions were directed to be made in writing.

• Independent panel of adjudicators: On 10 June 2020 imposed a 12-month interim conditions of practice order on the appellant’s registration.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 was dismissed.