Social Work England v Howard Wilson-Mudarikwa

When deciding whether to continue an interim suspension order, the court must not determine the underlying substantive merits. It must consider the nature of the allegations and whether continuation is necessary for the protection of the public, including public confidence, and is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.

An individual’s stated intention not to practise during regulatory proceedings does not necessarily remove the need for a clear, certain and enforceable protective measure. That intention is relevant to prejudice, but does not by itself outweigh the public interest in maintaining the order pending determination.

Social Work England applied under paragraph 14(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent. The order was due to expire on 6 July 2021, and the applicant sought a further five-month extension.

The regulatory proceedings had been ongoing since a referral to the HCPC in January 2018. The respondent opposed continuation, relying on delay, health consequences, personal prejudice and his stated intention not to practise while the proceedings remained unresolved. The central issue was whether continuation of the order remained necessary and proportionate for public protection and public confidence.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for five months, until 5 December 2021, with no order as to costs.
2. The court’s task was limited to deciding whether continuation of the interim order was justified. It was not the court’s function to make findings on the underlying substantive merits. The court had to have regard to the nature of the allegations and the public protection purpose of the measure.
3. Social Work England had discharged the burden of demonstrating that continuation was necessary for the protection of the public, including public confidence, and that a five-month extension was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. The accelerated final hearing date was relevant, but allowing additional headroom was sensible and proportionate in view of possible further delay, including health-related circumstances.
4. The respondent’s stated intention not to practise did not provide a good and sufficient reason for allowing the order to expire. The public interest required his ability to practise during the remaining period to be regulated by a measure that was clear, certain and enforceable. His stated intention reduced the prejudice caused by continuation, but did not displace the public interest justification.
5. The statutory review function continued to apply. The court also took account of the respondent’s health concerns, the delay, and the personal prejudice described by him, without treating those matters as outweighing the continuing need for public protection and confidence.

The judgment records an earlier decision in the same proceedings at the December hearing: [2020] EWHC 3304 (Admin). The present application concerned the subsequent extension of the interim suspension order.