Social Work England v Roy Reid

An interim suspension order may be continued where necessary and proportionate to protect the public and maintain public and professional confidence. The court should consider the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and prejudice to the registrant. A regulator may properly defer substantive investigation while a police investigation or criminal proceedings address the same evidence, provided that it later undertakes its own objective regulatory assessment. The court must not determine the underlying merits when deciding whether to continue interim measures.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend for 12 months an interim suspension order imposed on Roy Reid. The order had been made while serious criminal allegations were investigated and was due to expire shortly after the hearing.

Mr Reid argued that sufficient time had elapsed for the regulator to conduct its own investigation and that it should not rely on the police investigation. The central issues were whether continuation remained necessary and proportionate, whether the regulator was justified in awaiting the criminal process, and whether a further 12-month period was appropriate.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for 12 months, until 12 June 2022, subject to review by Social Work England’s adjudicators under paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018.

2. Under paragraph 14(2) and (3), the onus lay on the regulator to establish that continuation, and its duration, were necessary and proportionate. Relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to service users, the reasons why the case had not concluded and prejudice to the registrant. The court was not to express a view on the underlying merits.

3. The principles were encapsulated in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. A regulator may be justified in not conducting a parallel substantive investigation while the police investigate and criminal proceedings are contemplated, particularly where both investigations would examine the same evidence and witnesses.

4. That approach did not relieve the regulator of its independent function. Once the police and prosecutorial process was sufficiently advanced or concluded, Social Work England would need to undertake its own objective assessment of the regulatory outcome.

5. In the circumstances, the serious allegations, the charging decision, the continuing criminal process and the need to protect the public and maintain public and professional confidence justified continuation. The order could not appropriately lapse while the defendant faced serious charges and might resume work with children. The prejudice caused by delay was material but did not outweigh the public interest.

6. The hearing was properly conducted in public. Neither a private hearing nor anonymity was necessary or proportionate, including because continuation of the order involved no finding of fact on the criminal allegations.

First-instance application in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.