SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND v STUART SANDERS

When considering an extension of an interim suspension order in professional disciplinary proceedings, the court must be satisfied that the extension is necessary and proportionate for public protection and the maintenance of public confidence. The assessment may take account of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the respondent. The court must assess both whether an interim suspension remains required and whether its proposed duration is justified. It must not determine disputed substantive merits at the interim stage.

Social Work England applied under Schedule 2 paragraph 14 of the Social Workers Regulations 2018 for a further 10-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed against Stuart Sanders. The order had originally been imposed by the Health and Care Professions Council and previously extended by the High Court. The respondent had been served but did not attend or make written submissions.

The application required the court to decide whether continued suspension, rather than a lesser measure, was necessary and proportionate pending determination of serious allegations concerning alleged failures in child protection work, and whether the requested duration was justified in light of procedural delay and the respondent’s prejudice.

1. Application granted. The court extended the interim suspension order for 10 months, to 9 March 2023.
2. The applicant bore, and discharged, the onus of demonstrating the necessity of the extension for the protection of the public and public confidence in the social work profession and its regulation. The court was required to consider the nature of the order sought and its duration, including whether a lesser alternative would suffice.
3. In assessing necessity and proportionality, the court could take account of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to the relevant public, the reason why the case had not concluded, and the prejudice to the respondent, following GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369.
4. The allegations concerned serious and potentially widespread failures in child protection procedures, including alleged failures involving statutory visits, Child in Need plans, multi-agency working and record-keeping. The evidence indicated a continuing public-protection concern pending substantive resolution.
5. The court acknowledged the regrettable delay and considered the procedural steps taken, the anticipated progress of the regulatory case, and the respondent’s stated prejudice. It was not the court’s function at this stage to determine disputed facts or express a view on the substantive merits.
6. The requested 10-month extension was necessary and proportionate pending substantive determination of the allegations.

The judgment describes earlier procedural steps in the same proceedings, including the original interim suspension order and previous High Court extensions. No separate appellate decision is stated.