Social Work England v Anna Waugh

When deciding whether to extend a professional regulator’s interim order, the court must assess necessity for public protection, the public interest and the registrant’s interests. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continuation. The regulator bears the burden of establishing that continuation is necessary and proportionate. The court does not determine the substantive merits or make primary factual findings at the interim stage. An extension should last no longer than necessary. Where further delay is possible, a shorter extension may be justified, with any later application requiring complete evidence about the sequence of events.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a nine-month extension of an interim order imposed during regulatory proceedings against a social worker. The order had initially been an interim suspension order and had later been varied to conditions of practice before being restored to suspension following concerns about missing medical evidence and an alleged breach of disclosure conditions.

The Defendant opposed continuation, relying on delay, professional and financial prejudice, and the prospect that a further nine months was unnecessary. The central issues were whether continuation was necessary and proportionate, and, if so, for what period.

1. Continuation necessary. Applying the approach described in Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the court considered the need to protect the public, the public interest and the registrant’s own interests. It also considered the gravity of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continuation. The burden lay on Social Work England.
2. The court was not determining the substantive allegations or making primary findings of fact about the events leading to suspension. The interim issue was whether continuation was necessary pending substantive consideration.
3. The underlying concerns justified continuation. The review panel had lacked an updated medical picture despite a previous condition requiring one. It had also identified an apparent failure to disclose the conditions of practice at first contact with a prospective agency. Restoring the interim suspension order was therefore justified.
4. The requested nine-month extension was excessive. Taking account of the Defendant’s prejudice, delays concerning consent and information from the employing authority, the importance of the outstanding material, and the need for cooperation, a seven-month extension was necessary and proportionate.
5. The order was extended to 22 January 2022. Any application to continue it beyond that date would require full and complete evidence about the sequence of events. The interim review panel remained free to determine subsequent reviews, and no order for costs was made.